State v. Simon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “an abuse of discretion which renders the lower court's decision clearly erroneous,”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 456 N.J. Super. 382 - State v. Vasco · 459 N.J. Super. 157 - State v. Hooper

2. “In order to be able to seek the death penalty the State must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant by his own conduct committed what is called a purposeful or knowing murder. A purposeful murder is one in which it was the defendant’s purpose or conscious object or intention to cause the death of his victim and did cause it. A knowing murder is one in which the defendant knew or was aware that what he did was practically certain to result in the victim’s death. Another way of a murder being a purposeful or knowing murder is if the defendant had the purpose to inflict serious bodily injury on the victim, where the injury is such that death is practically certain to ensue, and at that time that the defendant was aware that his actions were practically certain to cause the death of a victim, and that person did, in fact, die, then this serious bodily injury type of murder is a form of murder that is potentially eligible for the death sentence. That is the basic threshold for someone to even be possibly considered for the death penalty, that all 12 jurors unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of committing that kind of murder, that is, a purposeful or knowing murder by his own conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Cruz

3. “In addition to defendant's own words, common sense informs us that when someone shoots at another person in the upper body region, such as the neck and head, the shooter's purpose is either to cause serious bodily injury that results in death or to actually cause death, especially where no other plausible explanation is given. Although defendant claims he did not specifically aim his gun at Sergeant Gonzalez's upper body region, he admits that he intended the bullet to hit the victim and that his purpose in shooting Sergeant Gonzalez was to cause serious bodily injury if not to kill him. Moreover, the circumstances under which defendant shot the victim—at close range, two shots, not one, to the upper body region —manifested an indifference to whether the victim was killed instantly or eventually died from the infliction of serious bodily injury. Therefore, defendant's plea established that he had the requisite mens rea for purposeful or knowing murder pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) and (2), and the trial court did not err in finding that defendant acknowledged a mental state required for capital murder. [ Id. at 450 , 737 A. 2d 1 (emphasis added).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 N.J. Super. 257 - State v. Ramsey