State v. Spain’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably State v. Gould (2001), State v. Kleypas (2001)
72 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 Eddings v. Oklahoma · McMillan v. Pennsylvania · Specht v. Patterson · Hitchcock v. Dugger · State v. Kingsley
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"That brings us down to whether this is a hard 40 or hard 50 case. I'm of the opinion the State has presented sufficient evidence to show the hard 50 is justified. More specifically, and the journal entry should reflect it, I am finding that pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4636 subsection (e), the defendant committed the crime in order to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest or prosecution. There was evidence present[ed] during the trial that that was exactly the reason why the victim ... was killed. I believe the evidence strongly points to that conclusion, and looking at it in the light most favorable to the State in any event, I think that has clearly been shown." (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nelson · State v. Nelson““Mitigating circumstances shall include, but are not limited to, the following: “(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. “(b) The crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances. “(c) The victim was a participant in or consented to the defendant’s conduct. “(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the crime committed by another person, and the defendant’s participation was relatively minor. “(e) The defendant acted under extreme distress or under the substantial domination of another person. “(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct or to conform the defendant’s conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired. “(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime. “(h) At the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome caused by violence or abuse by the victim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Livingston““These essential facts are not in dispute: On March 17,1995, David Spain and two other inmates escaped from the Haskell County Jail after Spain shot the dispatcher, Irvin Powell. Spain fired one shot from behind, which struck Powell in the neck. After being told by one of the other escapees to “[p]lug him again,” Spain fired a second shot into Powell’s chest. Powell died 3 days later from the bullet wounds inflicted by Spain. Spain entered a plea of no contest to one count of premeditated first-degree murder. He was sentenced to serve a mandatory term of imprisonment of 40 years.” 263 Kan. at 709 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Spain
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.