State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 state decisions

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

1. “Deliberation means an intent to kill, carried out in a cool state of blood, in furtherance of a fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an unlawful purpose and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by lawful or just cause or legal provocation.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. McNeil · 167 N.C. App. 372 - State v. Santiago

2. “The Court stated that in order to establish such a prima facie case, the defendant must first show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race; second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that lends itself to potential abuse; and third, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances (e.g., a pattern of strikes against black jurors in a particular voir dire, questions and statements by the prosecutor during voir dire, etc.) raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on the basis of race. (Emphasis added)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Abbott · State v. SUPERIOR COURT (MARICOPA CTY.)

3. “Before the issue of a defendant’s guilt may be submitted to the jury, the trial court must be satisfied that substantial evidence has been introduced tending to prove each essential element of the offense charged and that the defendant was the perpetrator. State v. Hamlet, 312 N.C. 162 , 321 S.E. 2d 837 (1984); State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95 , 261 S.E. 2d 114 (1980). Substantial evidence must be existing and real, but need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47 , 301 S.E. 2d 335 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 177 , reh’g denied, 464 U.S. 1004 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 704 (1983). In considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and inference to be drawn therefrom. State v. Hamlet, 312 N.C. 162 , 321 S.E. 2d 837 ; State v. Bright, 301 N.C. 243 , 271 S.E. 2d 368 (1980). Contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant dismissal. State v. Brown, 315 N.C. 40 , 337 S.E. 2d 808 (1985); State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95 , 261 S.E. 2d 114 . First-degree murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of a human being with malice and with premeditation and deliberation. State v. Fleming, 296 N.C. 559 , 251 S.E. 2d 430 (1979); N.C.G.S. § 14-17 (1981 and Cum. Supp. 1985). Premeditation means that the act was thought out beforehand for some length of time, however short, but no ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Forrest