State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e consider the effect the totality of the circumstances had upon the will of the defendant and whether the defendant’s will was overborne. The factors we consider in making such a determination include: (1) the defendant’s youth; (2) the defendant’s lack of education or low intelligence; (3) the absence of any advice to the defendant of his constitutional rights; (4) the length of detention; (5) the repeated and prolonged nature of questioning; and (6) the-use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep. In reviewing the trial court’s finding on voluntariness, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Aesoph · State v. Owens

2. “(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of State’s soil expert? (2) Whether allowing the trial court to channel the sentencer’s discretion violates Moeller’s right to fair notice under the due process and separation of powers clauses of the United States and South Dakota Constitutions? (3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing Moeller's proposed jury instructions regarding residual doubt? (4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecution to give a rebuttal argument at the sentencing phase? (5) Whether the trial court erred in admitting results of DNA DQ-alpha typing evidence? (6) Whether SDCL 23A-27A-1(6) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad? (7) Whether the death penalty is proscribed by Article VI, § 23 of the South Dakota Constitution? (8) Whether SDCL ch 23A-27A is unconstitutional in that it provides insufficient guidance to the sentencer? We also deem it unnecessary to consider State’s notice of review issue 1, and we find that notice of review issues 2 and 4 are moot. Those issues were: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Moeller to present moral and religious arguments against the death penalty during closing arguments in the sentencing phase? (2) Whether it was error to grant allocution to Moeller? (4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Moeller to depose a witness twice before trial?”

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

3. “The door to the room in which [the officer] interviewed [defendant] was unlocked, of which he was aware, but was closed for privacy. We have previously held that a closed, or even a locked, door does not, in and of itself, create a custodial interrogation. No restraints were placed on [defendant], and he was free to move about the room and free to leave.... We do not find error in the trial court’s conclusion that [defendant] was not in custody at the time of the interview [ ] ... at the police station.”

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