Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1969–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences2012Prior to State v. Johnson, M’Naghten was the prevailing test for determining criminal responsibility based on "whether the defendant had the capacity to know right from wrong in respect to the particular act charged.” State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254 , 260 n. 3, 399 A.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (1979) (quoting *11 Brakel & Rock, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 379-80 (rev.2d ed.1971)); see State v. Andrews, 86 R.I. 341, 351-52 , 134 A.2d 425, 431 (1957) (intimating that the M’Naghten test was the prevailing view in Rhode Island); State v. Quigley, 26 R.I. 263, 276 , 58 A. 905, 910 (1904) (adopting the 2012Prior to State v. Johnson, M’Naghten was the prevailing test for determining criminal responsibility based on "whether the defendant had the capacity to know right from wrong in respect to the particular act charged.” State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254 , 260 n. 3, 399 A.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (1979) (quoting *11 Brakel & Rock, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 379-80 (rev.2d ed.1971)); see State v. Andrews, 86 R.I. 341, 351-52 , 134 A.2d 425, 431 (1957) (intimating that the M’Naghten test was the prevailing view in Rhode Island); State v. Quigley, 26 R.I. 263, 276 , 58 A. 905, 910 (1904) (adopting the | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Charles Freemangreen2 sentences1992Second, the M’Naghten standard restricted expert testimony to the issue of a defendant’s cognitive ability and deprived the jury of a true and complete picture of a defendant’s mental state. 121 R.I. at 262 , 399 A.2d at 473 (citing United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606, 620 (2d Cir.1966)). 1992Second, the M’Naghten standard restricted expert testimony to the issue of a defendant’s cognitive ability and deprived the jury of a true and complete picture of a defendant’s mental state. 121 R.I. at 262 , 399 A.2d at 473 (citing United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606, 620 (2d Cir.1966)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2012Prior to State v. Johnson, M’Naghten was the prevailing test for determining criminal responsibility based on "whether the defendant had the capacity to know right from wrong in respect to the particular act charged.” State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254 , 260 n. 3, 399 A.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (1979) (quoting *11 Brakel & Rock, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 379-80 (rev.2d ed.1971)); see State v. Andrews, 86 R.I. 341, 351-52 , 134 A.2d 425, 431 (1957) (intimating that the M’Naghten test was the prevailing view in Rhode Island); State v. Quigley, 26 R.I. 263, 276 , 58 A. 905, 910 (1904) (adopting the 2012Prior to State v. Johnson, M’Naghten was the prevailing test for determining criminal responsibility based on "whether the defendant had the capacity to know right from wrong in respect to the particular act charged.” State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254 , 260 n. 3, 399 A.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (1979) (quoting *11 Brakel & Rock, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 379-80 (rev.2d ed.1971)); see State v. Andrews, 86 R.I. 341, 351-52 , 134 A.2d 425, 431 (1957) (intimating that the M’Naghten test was the prevailing view in Rhode Island); State v. Quigley, 26 R.I. 263, 276 , 58 A. 905, 910 (1904) (adopting the | 2 | 6 |
State v. Quigleygreen2 sentences2012Prior to State v. Johnson, M’Naghten was the prevailing test for determining criminal responsibility based on "whether the defendant had the capacity to know right from wrong in respect to the particular act charged.” State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254 , 260 n. 3, 399 A.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (1979) (quoting *11 Brakel & Rock, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 379-80 (rev.2d ed.1971)); see State v. Andrews, 86 R.I. 341, 351-52 , 134 A.2d 425, 431 (1957) (intimating that the M’Naghten test was the prevailing view in Rhode Island); State v. Quigley, 26 R.I. 263, 276 , 58 A. 905, 910 (1904) (adopting the 2012Prior to State v. Johnson, M’Naghten was the prevailing test for determining criminal responsibility based on "whether the defendant had the capacity to know right from wrong in respect to the particular act charged.” State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254 , 260 n. 3, 399 A.2d 469 , 472 n. 3 (1979) (quoting *11 Brakel & Rock, The Mentally Disabled and the Law 379-80 (rev.2d ed.1971)); see State v. Andrews, 86 R.I. 341, 351-52 , 134 A.2d 425, 431 (1957) (intimating that the M’Naghten test was the prevailing view in Rhode Island); State v. Quigley, 26 R.I. 263, 276 , 58 A. 905, 910 (1904) (adopting the | 1 | 5 |
Stovall v. Dennogreen2 sentences1980Cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. at 300 , 87 S. Ct. at 1971 , 18 L. 1980Cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. at 300 , 87 S. Ct. at 1971 , 18 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1979The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether this court should abandon the M’Naghten test in favor of a new standard for determining the criminal responsibility of those who claim they are blameless by reason of mental illness. 1 State v. Johnson, 119 R.I. 749 , 383 A.2d 1012, 1013 (1978). 1979The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether this court should abandon the M’Naghten test in favor of a new standard for determining the criminal responsibility of those who claim they are blameless by reason of mental illness. 1 State v. Johnson, 119 R.I. 749 , 383 A.2d 1012, 1013 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Donald Kenneth Currensgreen1 sentence1979See generally United States v. Currens, 290 F.2d at 765-66 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arpin
green
2 sentences1981Also, in Arpin , in addressing contentions similar to those raised by defendant in the instant case, we said that “killing was premeditation, the requisite criminal intent for murder in Rhode Island, and killing while legally insane are [not] inconsistent or mutually exclusive.” We concluded that “a careful analysis of the elements of the Rhode Island murder statute and the M’Naghten test for legal insanity does not support defendant’s argument that legal insanity and the criminal intent for murder cannot coexist at the time of the commission of a homicide.” [Citation omitted.] Id., 410 A.2d a 1981Also, in Arpin , in addressing contentions similar to those raised by defendant in the instant case, we said that “killing was premeditation, the requisite criminal intent for murder in Rhode Island, and killing while legally insane are [not] inconsistent or mutually exclusive.” We concluded that “a careful analysis of the elements of the Rhode Island murder statute and the M’Naghten test for legal insanity does not support defendant’s argument that legal insanity and the criminal intent for murder cannot coexist at the time of the commission of a homicide.” [Citation omitted.] Id., 410 A.2d a | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Durham v. United States
green
2 sentences1971Rep. 718 or the rule in Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. 1971Rep. 718 or the rule in Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1969We need only discuss defendant’s first contention because, although defendant’s interrogation took place prior to the mandates enumerated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 438 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. 1969We need only discuss defendant’s first contention because, although defendant’s interrogation took place prior to the mandates enumerated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 438 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.