Camargo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

79 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although highly deferential to the trial court’s discretion in these matters, this court has rejected a carte blanche approach to admission of photographs. Berry v. State, 290 Ark. 223, 227 , 718 S.W.2d 447, 450 (1986). We have cautioned against “promoting a general rule of admissibility that essentially allows automatic acceptance of all photographs of the victim and crime scene the prosecution can offer.” Id. at 228 , 781 S.W.2d at 450. This court rejects the admission of inflammatory pictures where claims of relevance are tenuous and prejudice is great, and expects the trial court to carefully weigh the probative value of photographs against their prejudicial nature. Id. at 228-29, 781 S.W.2d at 450. We require the trial court to first consider whether such evidence, although relevant, creates a danger of unfair prejudice, and then to determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526 , 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980). Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Ark. R. Evid. 403.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gates v. State · State v. Collins

2. “(a) The jury shall impose a sentence of death if it unanimously returns written findings that: (1) Aggravating circumstances exist beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Aggravating circumstances outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all mitigating circumstances found to exist; and (3) Aggravating circumstances justify a sentence of death beyond a reasonable doubt. (b) The jury shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole if it finds that: (1) Aggravating circumstances do not exist beyond a reasonable doubt; or (2) Aggravating circumstances do not outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt all mitigating circumstances found to exist; or (3) Aggravating circumstances do not justify a sentence of death beyond a reasonable doubt. (c) If the jury does not make all findings required by subsection (a) of this section, the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State · Noel v. State

3. “Appellant relies upon a fine of United States Supreme Court cases that hold that any death sentence resulting from a deliberate exclusion of any mitigating circumstance is presumptively invalid. Penry v. [Lynaugh], 492 U.S. 302 (1989); Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 (1987); California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 (1987); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982); Roberts v. Louisiana, 431 U.S. 633 (1977); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). We find no such deliberate exclusion, because appellant was permitted to make his argument to the jury. We rejected an identical argument in Sheridan v. State, 313 Ark. 23 , 852 S.W.2d 772 (1993), in which we held that when the defendant is allowed to present the possible mitigators and the jury is told it is not limited to the mitigators listed on the form, it is not error to submit the standard form to the jury in lieu of a form proposed by the defendant. Id. at 38 , 852 S.W.2d at 779 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Camargo v. State