State v. Stanley’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably State v. Stokes (1987), State v. Brown (1985)
66 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Gardner v. Florida · Godfrey v. Georgia · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In making this decision, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, discrepancies and contradictions are disregarded, the state's evidence is taken as true, and the state is entitled to every inference of fact that may be reasonably deduced therefrom. The defendant's evidence, unless favorable to the state, is not to be considered in deciding the question. If there is substantial evidence of each element of the issue under consideration, the issue must be submitted to the jury for its determination. If the evidence only raises a suspicion or conjecture as to the existence of the fact to be found, the issue should not be submitted. (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Moose · State v. Hamlet“One type includes killings physically agonizing or otherwise dehumanizing to the victim. A second type inclhdes killings less violent but “conscienceless, pitiless, or unnecessarily torturous to the victim,” including those which leave the victim in her “last moments aware of but helpless to prevent impending death.” A third type exists where “the killing demonstrates an unusual depravity of mind on the part of the defendant beyond that normally present in first-degree murder.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McNeill · State v. Allen“[T]he evidence in the present case was insufficient to support the submission of the aggravating factor to the jury. The evidence showed that the defendant fired almost immediately upon the victim[’s] entering the vestibule. The first shot to strike Bramlett hit him in the head. . . . The victim was unconscious and unable to feel any pain after the shot to his head. . . . Though death was not instantaneous, the victim did not linger for any extended period of time following the shooting. . . . The State also contends that there was evidence to support an inference that the victim suffered psychological torture prior to the killing. We disagree. The evidence in the present case tended to show that the victim was unaware of the assailant’s presence until the victim entered the vestibule where he was shot immediately. There was no evidence upon which to base an inference that Bramlett was left “in his last moments as a sentient being, aware but helpless to prevent impending death.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gibbs
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.