State v. Boykin’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. White (1988), State v. Worsley (1994)
78 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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · Hankerson v. North Carolina · Liotta v. National Forge Co. · State v. Hankerson · State v. Bush
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law is well settled that the trial court must submit and instruct the jury on a lesser included offense when, and only when, there is evidence from which the jury could find that defendant committed the lesser included offense. However, when the State’s evidence is positive as to every element of the crime charged and there is no conflicting evidence relating to any element of the crime charged, the trial court is not required to submit and instruct the jury on any lesser included offense. The determining factor is the presence of evidence to support a conviction of the lesser included offense.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“Second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without premeditation and deliberation. Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice and without premeditation and deliberation. ❖ * * * . . . Therefore, in order for you to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first or second degree, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, among other things, that the defendant did not act in self-defense; or, failing this, that the defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the deceased. If the State fails to prove either that the defendant did not act in self-defense or was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm, you may not convict the defendant of either first or second degree murder; but you may convict the defendant of voluntary manslaughter if the State proved that the defendant was simply the aggressor without murderous intent in bringing on the fight in which the deceased was killed or that the defendant used excessive force. * * * * ... In order for you to find the defendant guilty of second degree murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawful, [sic] intentionally and with malice killed the victim with a deadly weapon, thereby proximately causing his death; and that the defendant did not act in self-defense or if the defendant did act in self-defense, that he was the aggressor with the intent to ki”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Martin“The defendant has been charged with robbery with a firearm, which is taking and carrying away the personal property of another from his person or his presence without his consent by endangering or threatening a person's life with a firearm, the taker knowing that he was not entitled to take the property and intending to deprive another of its use permanently. For you to find these defendants guilty of this offense, the State must prove seven things beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that these defendants took property from the person of another or in his presence. That these defendants carried away the property. Third, that the person did not voluntarily consent to the taking and carrying away of the property. Fourth, that these defendants knew they were not entitled to take the property. Fifth, that at the time of the taking these defendants intended to deprive that person of its use permanently. Sixth, that these defendants had a firearm in their possession at the time they obtained the property. And seventh, that these defendants obtained the property by endangering or threatening the life of that person with the firearm. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date these defendants had in their possession a firearm and took and carried away the property from the person or presence of the person without voluntary consent by endangering or threatening her life with the use or threatened use of a firearm, these defendants knowing t”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kelly
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.