State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2019
9 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 State v. Smart · State v. Tyner · State v. Sloan · State v. Woomer · State v. Butler
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature arising out of an assault on an elderly store clerk. We reverse and remand for a new trial. During closing argument, the solicitor told the jury the case had already been examined by a magistrate and a grand jury, and a preliminary hearing had been held. He also said an appeal would enable a higher court to review any decision made by them. We have repeatedly condemned closing arguments that lessen the jury’s sense of responsibility by reference to preliminary determinations of the facts. [Citations omitted]. We have also found error where the jury was advised their decision was subject to appellate review. [Citation omitted]. These statements to the jury are improper because they inject an arbitrary factor into jury deliberations. The danger is that a juror might be persuaded to rely on the opinion of others instead of exercising his independent judgment as to the facts. 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial § 261, p. 338. ‘Jurors are simply not to consider the opinions of neighbors, officials or even other juries.’ State v. Smart, 278 S.C. 515, 526 , 299 S.E.2d 686 (1982). We caution solicitors that arguments of this kind can rarely be harmless. In light of our reversal on this issue, it is unnecessary to reach appellant’s other exceptions. REVERSED AND REMANDED.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holcomb · Sailors v. State“are improper because they inject an arbitrary factor into jury deliberations. The danger is that a juror might be persuaded to rely on the opinion of others instead of exercising his independent judgment as to the facts....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holcomb
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.