State v. Josephs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reddish · 376 N.J. Super. 201 - State v. Horne

2. “Murder is reduced to manslaughter if the murder is committed in the heat of passion in response to a reasonable provocation. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4 b(2). Passion/provocation manslaughter has four elements: (1) reasonable and adequate provocation; (2) no cooling-off time in the period between the provocation and the slaying; (3) a defendant who actually was impassioned by the provocation; and (4) a defendant who did not cool off before the slaying. The first two elements of the offense are objective; thus, if they are supported by the evidence, the trial court should instruct the jury on passion/provocation manslaughter, leaving the determination of the remaining elements to the jury. [ State v. Josephs, 174 N.J. 44, 103 , 803 A. 2d 1074 (2002) (citations omitted).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 N.J. Super. 106 - State v. Foglia

3. “[M]ystified by the Court’s resistance to revisiting a fifteen [now twenty] year-old opinion that, by its very terms, was rooted in conclusions about the public’s appetite for the death penalty that appear to have changed. The suggestion that the Court’s past perfunctory rejection of equally perfunctory challenges to Ramseur over the years gives currency to that opinion is neither jurisprudentially sustainable nor an appropriate response to a case involving the ultimate sanction of death. [Id. at 164-65, 524 A.2d 188 (Long, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Wakefield