State v. Rutledge’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2023
2 federal appellate · 19 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
Relies on Ring v. Arizona · State v. Gretzler · State v. Ring · Williams v. Texas · State v. Trostle
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State did not present any direct evidence during the sentencing hearing to prove that the expectation of pecuniary gain motivated Hoskins to take Crystel’s life. The State relied primarily on two witnesses who testified at trial that Hos-kins had told them he planned to car-jack someone someday. Based on these witnesses’ trial testimony and on circumstantial evidence, the judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoskins murdered Crystel Cabral with the expectation of pecuniary gain. We cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury hearing the same evidence as did the judge would have interpreted the circumstantial evidence or assessed the witnesses’ credibility as did the judge. The defense presented an expert who diagnosed Hoskins as having Bipolar II Disorder and testified that the disorder could have contributed to Hoskins’ conduct. We also cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a jury hearing the same evidence as did the judge would have assessed the defense expert’s testimony similarly and would have failed to find mental impairment, a statutory mitigating circumstance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Speers“Convictions for serious offenses committed on the same occasion as the homicide, or not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial with the homicide, shall be treated as a serious offense under this paragraph.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Roque
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.