State v. Hankerson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 238 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 274 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . the State must bear the burden throughout the trial of proving each element of the crime charged including, where applicable, malice and unlawfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. ... If, after the mandatory presumptions [of malice and unlawfulness] are raised, there is no evidence of a heat of passion killing on sudden provocation and no evidence that the killing was in self-defense, Mullaney permits and our law requires the jury to be instructed that defendant must be convicted of murder in the second degree. ... If there is evidence in the case of all the elements of self-defense, the mandatory presumption of unlawfulness disappears but the logical inferences from the facts proved may be weighed against this evidence. If upon considering all the evidence, including the inferences and evidence of self-defense, the jury is left with a reasonable doubt as to the .existence of unlawfulness it must find the defendant not guilty.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Patterson · State v. Harris

2. ““is simply to impose upon the defendant a burden to go forward with or produce some evidence of . . . self-defense or heat of passion on sudden provocation, or rely on such evidence as may be present in the state’s case. The mandatory presumption is simply a way of stating our legal rule that in the absence of evidence of mitigating or justifying factors all killings accomplished through the intentional use of a deadly weapon are deemed to be malicious and unlawful. The prosecution need not prove malice and unlawfulness unless there is evidence in the case of their nonexistence.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Patterson · State v. Berry

3. ““If the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt or it is admitted that the defendant intentionally killed Eugene Sud-dreth with a deadly weapon or intentionally inflicted a wound upon Eugene Suddreth with a deadly weapon that proximately caused his death, the law implies first, that the stabbing was unlawful, and, second, that it was done with malice; and if nothing else appears the defendant would be guilty of second degree murder.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Berry · State v. Matthews