State v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. Morris (2007), State v. Dann (2009)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 71 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Crawford v. Washington · Lockett v. Ohio · Ring v. Arizona
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“¶ 64 Arizona’s sentencing scheme provides: At the penalty phase, the defendant and the state may present any evidence that is relevant to the determination of whether there is mitigation that is sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. In order for the trier of fact to make this determination, the state may present any evidence that demonstrates that the defendant should not be shown leniency.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Boggs · State v. Boggs“[t]rial courts can and should exclude evidence that is either irrelevant to the thrust of the defendant's mitigation or otherwise unfairly prejudicial,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pandeli · State v. Boggs“The terms “heinous” or “depraved” focus upon a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense, as reflected by his words and actions at or near the time of the offense. A murder is especially heinous if it is hatefully or shockingly evil: grossly bad. A murder is especially depraved if it is marked by debasement, corruption, perversion or deterioration. To determine whether Defendant’s actions were especially heinous or depraved, you should consider whether Defendant’s behavior evidenced any of the following: 1. Relishing the murder; or 2. Inflicting gratuitous violence on the victim beyond that necessary to kill; or 3. Mutilating the victim’s body. In this context, “relishing” refers to Defendant’s words or actions that demonstrate debasement or perversion. In order to support a finding of relishing, Defendant must say or do something, other than committing the murder itself, to show that he savored or reveled in the killing. In this context, “gratuitous violence” refers to violence committed upon the victim beyond that necessary to kill. Gratuitous violence also may be found if you determine that the circumstances evidence that the murder could have been accomplished by less violent manners. In this context, “needless mutilation” means that Defendant, in any act separate and distinct from the killing itself, committed other acts with the intent to mutilate the victim’s corpse, such as the purposeful severing of body parts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pandeli
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.