State v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited
30 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Bland · State v. Crawford · Smith v. State · State v. Cazes
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[D]eclarations by the defendant of an intent to kill, evidence of procurement of a weapon, the use of a deadly weapon upon an unarmed victim, the particular cruelty of the killing, infliction of multiple wounds, preparation before the killing for concealment of the crime, destruction or secretion of evidence of the murder, and calmness immediately after the killing.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In my view, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for first degree murder because there was no evidence of the [Petitioner’s ] planning, the [Petitioner’s] prior relationship with the victim, the cause or manner of the victim’s death, or any other evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was premeditated, ie., com mitted “after the exercise of reflection and judgment. ” [[Image here]] There was ... no evidence that the [Petitioner] procured a weapon in advance for the purpose of killing the victim, made preparations to conceal the killing before it was committed, or exhibited a calm or cool demeanor immediately after the killing. [E]vidence supporting the factors we have traditionally relied upon in analyzing premeditation was absent in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.