Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 306 ARK 546 - Beard v. State

Beard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
November 1995
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ake v. Oklahoma · Beed v. State · Parker v. State · Richmond v. State · Rowe v. State

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

  1. “The appellant also argues that it was error to allow additional closing argument in the sentencing phase of the trial because it is not provided for in the statutory provision [ Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-202 (1987)] providing for sentencing procedure for habitual offenders. He maintains it prejudiced him because the prosecutor was able to argue punishment on both convictions. The appellant cites no authority for his contention beyond the language of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-502 , which gives us no guidance. However, we find some analogy to the procedure in capital cases, see Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-602 (1987), and that, coupled with the trial court’s broad discretion in the management of trial proceedings generally, supports the conclusion there was no error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.