State v. Kirtley’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably 193 W. Va. 519 - State v. Bradshaw (1995), 200 W. Va. 280 - State v. Hinkle (1996)
63 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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Linkletter v. Walker
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Once there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt that the killing resulted from the defendant acting in self-defense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“Instruction No. 13— “The Court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, JOSEPH A. THAYER, shot and killed David Duane Young and that he, the said JOSEPH A. THAYER, relies upon self-defense to excuse him for such act, the burden of showing such excuse is on the defendant, and to avail him such defense he must prove to the satisfaction of the jury by a preponderance of the evidence....” Instruction No. 17— “The Court instructs the jury that there is no law to justify the proposition that a man may be the assailant, the aggressor, and bring on a fight and then claim exemption from the consequences thereof on the ground of self-defense; ... before he can avail himself of self-defense it must appear that he withdrew from the assault in good faith and clearly announced a desire for peace. And you are instructed that in order to carry the burden of showing that he did retreat and announce a desire for peace after the trouble began, he must prove such defense by a preponderance of the evidence.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“10. A sudden intentional killing with a deadly weapon, by one who is not in any way at fault, in immediate resentment of a gross provocation, is prima facie a killing in heat of blood, and, therefore, an offense of no higher degree than voluntary mansalughter. 11. When in such case the evidence discloses that no time intervened between the giving of the provocation and the act of killing, within which passion could have subsided and reason regained its dominion and the fatal act itself was not attended by circumstances of extreme cruelty and inhumanity, nor preceded by conduct from which malice can be inferred, a conviction of murder in the second degree should be set aside and a new trial allowed.”
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.