State v. Canty’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Hartness (1990), State v. Richardson (1995)
74 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 White v. White · State v. Ahearn · State v. Jones · State v. Melton · State v. Penley
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] trial court must find a statutory mitigating factor if that factor is supported by uncontradicted, substantial, and credible evidence. To show that the trial court erred in failing to find a mitigating factor, the evidence must show conclusively that this mitigating factor exists, i.e., no other reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence. Even uncontradicted, quantitatively substantial and credible evidence may simply fail to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, any given factor in aggravation or mitigation. While evidence may not be ignored, it can be properly rejected if it fails to prove, as a matter of law, the existence of the mitigating factor.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The defendant committed the offense under duress, coercion, threat, or compulsion that was insufficient to constitute a defense but significantly reduced the defendant’s culpability. (3) The defendant was suffering from a mental or physical condition that was insufficient to constitute a defense but significantly reduced the defendant’s culpability for the offense. (4) The defendant’s age, immaturity, or limited mental capacity at the time of commission of the offense significantly reduced the defendant’s culpability for the offense. (11) Prior to arrest or at an early stage of the criminal process, the defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing in connection with the offense to a law enforcement officer. (15) The defendant has accepted responsibility for the defendant’s criminal conduct. (16) The defendant has entered and is currently involved in or has successfully completed a drug treatment program or an alcohol treatment program subsequent to arrest and prior to trial. (17) The defendant supports the defendant’s family. (18) The defendant has a support system in the community.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen a defendant argues . . . that the trial court erred in failing to find a mitigating factor proved by uncontradicted evidence, . . . [h]e is asking the court to conclude that “the evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences to the contrary can be drawn” and that the credibility of the evidence “is manifest as a matter of law.””
2 later decisions 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.