State v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(f) The defendant committed the crime in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. A finding that the victim was aware of such victim’s fate or had conscious pain and suffering as a result of die physical trauma that resulted in the victim’s death is not necessary to find that the manner in which the defendant killed tire victim was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. In making a determination that die crime was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner, any of die following conduct by the defendant may be considered sufficient: “(1) Prior stalking of or criminal threats to the victim; “(2) preparation or planning, indicating an intention that the lulling was meant to be especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; “(3) infliction of mental anguish or physical abuse before die victim’s deatii; “(4) torture of the victim; “(5) continuous acts of violence begun before or continuing after the killing; “(6) desecration of the victim’s body in a manner indicating a particular depravity of mind, either during or following the killing; or “(7) any other conduct in the opinion of the court that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Baker · State v. Jones

2. ““ ‘When a defendant challenges tire sufficiency of evidence for establishing the existence of an aggravating circumstance in a hard 50 sentencing proceeding, die standard of review is whetiier, after a review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to die prosecution, a rational factfinder could have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence.’ State v. Buehler-May, 279 Kan. 371 , Syl. ¶ 12, 110 P.3d 425 (2005).” State v. Washington, 280 Kan. 565, 568 , 123 P.3d 1265 (2005).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Baker · State v. Jones