State v. Stokes’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably McKoy v. North Carolina (1990), Cabana v. Bullock (1986)
68 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Woodson v. North Carolina · Enmund v. Florida · California v. Curry · In re Vendo Co.
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Did defendant deliver the fatal blows which caused the victim's death? 2. If not, did defendant, while acting as an aider and abettor, attempt to kill, intend to kill, or contemplate that life would be taken during the commission of the felony? Of course, defendant and the State will be permitted to offer competent evidence pertinent to the resolution of these issues. If the jury should answer either of the above-stated questions `yes,' then the jury would proceed to hear competent evidence concerning the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and return its recommendation as to whether defendant's punishment should be imprisonment for life or the death sentence. However, if the jury should answer both issues `no,' it would return a recommendation of life imprisonment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reese · State v. Stokes“Judicial economy requires that when first-degree murder is submitted to the jury on more than one theory at the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, the trial judge should submit the issues so as to require the jury to indicate the theory upon which [its] verdict is returned. See State v. Goodman, 298 N.C. 1 , 257 S.E.2d 569 (1979). This requirement would, in many instances, obviate the necessity of considering the Enmund holding at the sentencing phase of a trial. For instance, if accused is convicted of first-degree murder on the theory of premeditated and deliberated murder, the Enmund holding would have no application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robinson“This rule does not apply, however, to interlocutory orders given during the progress of an action which affect the procedure and conduct of the trial.”
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.