State v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Counsel agreed at oral argument that the distinction to be drawn between Ferguson and Rumsey is to be made on the victim’s awareness of the crime. Since there was only one use of force, and that must be assigned to support the murder element, under Ferguson and Rumsey there is no evidence to support the required robbery element of the use or threat of force unless the victim was aware of the threat during the robbery. Correctly perceiving that this was the precise issue, before imposing consecutive sentences the trial judge made an express finding that the victim had been aware, if only for a brief moment, of the gun in his ear and thus aware of the threat of force.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vaughn

2. ““In the instant case, the defendant demanded the victim’s wallet and threatened him with a gun prior to shooting him. Even though the victim’s wallet was not taken until after the victim was shot and presumably dead, the acts which constituted the robbery were separate and apart from the acts which constituted the murder. The fatal shooting constituted first degree murder independent of the armed robbery. Under the facts of this case, we hold that the intervening crime of murder does not preclude a conviction of armed robbery as well as murder, and the trial court was correct in imposing consecutive sentences for armed robbery and murder.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vaughn

3. “). Nevertheless, both the Arizona Supreme Court and the district court found that, although the prosecutor's conduct was egregious, the vouching was harmless error. Because it appears that any prejudice resulting from the conduct more probably than not was harmless, we agree and reject Woods' prosecutorial misconduct claims. 44 F. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Using One Form of Verdict on the Murder Charges of Premeditated Murder and Felony Murder 45 Woods next argues that because the jury received only one verdict form on the charges of premeditated and felony murder, he was deprived his”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woods v. Avenentti