State v. Murillo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 state decisions

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘(U the nature of tire weapon used; (2) lack of provocation; (3) the defendant's conduct before and after the lolling; (4) threats and declarations of the defendant before and during the occurrence; and (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Murillo, 269 Kan. 281, 286 , 7 P.3d 264 (2000).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Meeks · State v. Sanchez-Cazares

2. ““Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged for establishing the existence of an aggravating circumstance in a hard 40 sentencing proceeding, the standard of review is whether, after a review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could have found die existence of die aggravating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation omitted.]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Albright