State v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably State v. Dann (2009), State v. Don Chappell (2010)
47 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 Blakely v. Washington · Gregg v. Georgia · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Woodson v. North Carolina · Atkins v. Virginia
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Pecuniary gain ... need only be a motive for the murder, not the sole motive.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Mitigating circumstances are any factors that are a basis for a life sentence instead of a death sentence, so long as they relate to any sympathetic or other aspect of Mr. Prince’s character, propensity, history or record, or circumstances of the offense. Mitigating circumstances are not an excuse or justification for the offense, but are factors that in fairness or mercy may reduce Mr. Prince’s moral culpability. Mitigating circumstances may be offered by the defense or the State or be apparent from the evidence presented at this hearing. You are not required to find that there is a connection between a mitigating cii’cumstance and the crime committed in order to consider the mitigation evidence. While all 12 of you must unanimously agree regarding the appropriate sentence, you do not need to unanimously agree on a particular mitigating circumstance. Each one of you must decide individually whether any mitigating circumstance exists. The defense bears the burden of proving the existence of any mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence. That is, although the defense need not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense must convince you by the evidence presented that it is more probably true than not true that such a mitigating circumstance exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Prince“[Tjhere is no requirement that the killing occurred while committing or engaged in the felony, or that the killing be part of the felony. The homicide need not have been committed to perpetrate the felony. It is enough if the felony and the killing were part of the same series of events.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.