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 2 courts 1979–2012 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2012The defendant argues that “[a] second tier of proof, one that subjects the defense to the additional test of whether a particular disposition satisfies ‘the community’s sense of justice,’ is simply not what a jury is supposed to do” and that the “jury only gets to determine whether the requisite level of impairment was, in fact, proven.” The defendant asserts that the language used in State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254, 266 , 399 A.2d 469, 476 (1979), in which this Court adopted the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code definition of insanity, was intended to “explain the rationale for substit 2012The defendant argues that “[a] second tier of proof, one that subjects the defense to the additional test of whether a particular disposition satisfies ‘the community’s sense of justice,’ is simply not what a jury is supposed to do” and that the “jury only gets to determine whether the requisite level of impairment was, in fact, proven.” The defendant asserts that the language used in State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254, 266 , 399 A.2d 469, 476 (1979), in which this Court adopted the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code definition of insanity, was intended to “explain the rationale for substit | 2 | 8 |
State v. Collazogreen1 sentence2010See State v. Collazo, 967 A.2d 1106, 1111 (R.1.2009) (recognizing that in 1979, this Court adopted the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code test for legal insanity); see also State v. Johnson, 121 R.I. 254, 267 , 399 A.2d 469, 476 (1979) (acknowledging test for legal insanity). | 1 | 1 |
Fenwick v. Obermangreen1 sentence2009Battery in Rhode Island The defendant next invites this Court to abandon our common-law definition of criminal battery and replace it with the Model Penal Code’s rule, 5 which requires bodily injury to support a criminal conviction for battery. 6 In Rhode Island, “[a]side from the obvious higher standard of proof required to establish criminal battery, the law recognizes no distinction between criminal and civil battery.” Fenwick v. Oberman, 847 A.2d 852, 855 (R.I.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Proffitt v. Riccigreen1 sentence2009“Battery refers to an act that was intended to cause, and does cause, an offensive contact with or unconsented touching of or trauma upon the body of another, thereby generally resulting in the consummation of the assault.” State v. Messa, 594 A.2d 882, 884 (R.I.1991) (quoting Proffitt v. Ricci, 463 A.2d 514, 517 (R.I.1983)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Messagreen1 sentence2009“Battery refers to an act that was intended to cause, and does cause, an offensive contact with or unconsented touching of or trauma upon the body of another, thereby generally resulting in the consummation of the assault.” State v. Messa, 594 A.2d 882, 884 (R.I.1991) (quoting Proffitt v. Ricci, 463 A.2d 514, 517 (R.I.1983)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Drew
red
2 sentences1979The Legislature’s inactivity in this context reflects to us their adherence to the recommendations of the 1965 report. 5 “(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. “(2) As used in this article, the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.” Model Penal Code, §4.01 (Final Dr 1979The Legislature’s inactivity in this context reflects to us their adherence to the recommendations of the 1965 report. 5 “(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. “(2) As used in this article, the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.” Model Penal Code, §4.01 (Final Dr | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Wetmore
red
2 sentences1979The Legislature’s inactivity in this context reflects to us their adherence to the recommendations of the 1965 report. 5 “(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. “(2) As used in this article, the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.” Model Penal Code, §4.01 (Final Dr 1979The Legislature’s inactivity in this context reflects to us their adherence to the recommendations of the 1965 report. 5 “(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. “(2) As used in this article, the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.” Model Penal Code, §4.01 (Final Dr | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.