State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Bacon (1994), State v. Hill (1992)
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bruton v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Rhode Island v. Innis · State v. Wilkerson
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a defendant requests the trial court to instruct the jury that it may consider the mental condition of the defendant in deciding whether [he or] she formed a premeditated and deliberate specific intent to kill the victim, . . . [t]he proper test is whether the evidence of defendant’s mental condition is sufficient to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational trier of fact as to whether the defendant was capable of forming the specific intent to kill the victim at the time of the killing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“such facts and circumstances as raise only a conjecture or suspicion ought not to be allowed to distract the attention of juries from material matters[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘[EJvidence which merely shows it possible for the fact in issue to be as alleged, or which raises a mere conjecture that it was so, is an insufficient foundation for a verdict, and should not be left to the jury.’ That ‘such facts and circumstances as raise only a conjecture or suspicion ought not to be allowed to distract the attention of juries from material matters,’ is particularly pertinent when evidence of defendant’s mental condition at the time of the killing is implicated. [W]hen a defendant requests the trial court to instruct the jury that it may consider the mental condition of the defendant in deciding whether she formed a premeditated and deliberate specific intent to kill the victim, there must be sufficient evidence ‘reasonably to warrant inference of the fact at issue.’ The proper test is whether the evidence of defendant’s mental condition is sufficient to cause a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational trier of fact as to whether the defendant was capable of forming the specific intent to kill the victim at the time of the killing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Perry
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.