State v. Van McDougall’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 186 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012 · most notably McDougall v. North Carolina (1983), State v. Coffey (1990)
7 federal appellate · 186 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Smith v. North Carolina · State v. Pinch
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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by you is, or are, sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of the death penalty when considered with the mitigating circumstance or circumstances found by you?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rook v. Rice · State v. Holden“The objection made by defendant is that, as he had stipulated the fact of his prior conviction, the State should not have been allowed to introduce testimony concerning the murder. The State argues that when proving as an aggravating circumstance that defendant was previously convicted of a capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person (G.S. 15A-2000(e)(2) and (3)), the State should not be limited to admission of the court record of conviction. We think the better rule here is to allow both sides to introduce evidence in support of aggravating and mitigating circumstances which have been admitted into evidence by stipulation. If the capital felony of which defendant has previously been convicted was a particularly shocking or heinous crime, the jury should be so informed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones · State v. Roper“It is the duty of the trial judge to supervise and control the trial to prevent injustice to either party. The court has the power and duty to control the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. The trial judge may ban unduly repetitious and argumentative questions as well as inquiry into matters of tenuous relevance. The extent of cross-examination with respect to collateral matters is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. The proper exercise of this authority will prevent the determination of this aggravating circumstance from becoming a “mini-trial” of the previous charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter · State v. Cummings
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.