State v. Owen’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Wright (2009), State v. Roach (2012)
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian Crimes Act of 1976)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Patterson v. Illinois · Dennis v. Dennis
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The term, premeditated design to effect the death, means an intention, purpose, or determination to kill or take the life of the person killed, distinctly formed and existing in the mind of the perpetrator before committing the act resulting in the death of the person killed. A premeditated design to effect death sufficient to constitute murder may be formed instantly before committing the act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wright · State v. Martin“[W]e determine “whether there is sufficient evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; in making this determination, the Court will accept the evidence, and the most favorable inference fairly drawn therefrom, which will support the verdict.” State v. Owen, 2007 SD 21, ¶ 35 , 729 N.W.2d 356, 367 (quoting State v. Mesa, 2004 SD 68, ¶ 9 , 681 N.W.2d 84, 87 ). “A guilty verdict will not be set aside if the state’s evidence and all favorable inferences that can be drawn therefrom support a rational theory of guilt.” State v. Swalve, 2005 SD 17, ¶ 5 , 692 N.W.2d 794, 797 (quoting State v. Phair, 2004 SD 88, ¶ 16 , 684 N.W.2d 660, 665 (quoting State v. Downing, 2002 SD 148, ¶ 22 , 654 N.W.2d 793, 800 )).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ryan“The trial court must employ a two-step process when determining if prior bad acts should be admissible. First, the offered evidence must be relevant to a material issue in the case. Second, the trial court must determine “[wjhether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wright
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.