Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 40 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant provided several witnesses to testify that he had changed and had become a productive person in prison. Appellant argues that, at a minimum, the jury should have at least found that there was evidence of mitigating circumstances, even if they agreed unanimously that it did not exist.... Appellant argues that the jury showed that it did not consider the evidence by checking that part of the form [Part D] stating that it found no evidence of mitigation. This court has previously held that “[a] jury is not required to find a mitigating circumstance just because the defendant puts before the jury some evidence that could serve as the basis for finding the mitigating circumstance.” Bowen, 322 Ark. at 497, 911 S.W.2d at 561 (citing Duncan v. State, 291 Ark. 521 , 726 S.W.2d 653 (1987), and Hill v. State, 289 Ark. 387 , 713 S.W.2d 233 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101 [ 107 S.Ct. 1331 , 94 L.Ed.2d 182 ], and cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873 [ 108 S.Ct. 208 , 98 L.Ed.2d 159 ] (1987)). This court held further that the jury alone determines what weight to give the evidence, and may reject it or accept all or any part of it the jurors believe to be true. Id. (citing Davasher v. State, 308 Ark. 154 , 823 S.W.2d 863 , cert. denied, 504 U.S. 976 [ 112 S.Ct. 2948 , 119 L.Ed.2d 571 ] (1992), and Robertson v. State, 304 Ark. 332 , 802 S.W.2d 920 (1991)).... Here, the fact that after consideration, the jury did not regard Appellant’s change as a mitigating factor was not an error, as the”

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

2. “This court has previously held that “[a] jury is not required to find a mitigating circumstance just because the defendant puts before the jury some evidence that could serve as the basis for finding the mitigating circumstance.” Bowen [v. State, 322 Ark. 483, 497 , 911 S.W.2d 555, 561 ] (citing Duncan v. State, 291 Ark. 521 , 726 S.W.2d 653 (1987), and Hill v. State, 289 Ark. 387 , 713 S.W.2d 233 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101 , and cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873 (1987) . This court held further that the jury alone determines what weight to give the evidence, and may reject it or accept all or any part of it the jurors believe to be true. Id. (citing Davasher v. State, 308 Ark. 154 , 823 S.W.2d 863 , cert. denied, 504 U.S. 976 (1992), and Robertson v. State, 304 Ark. 332 , 802 S.W.2d 920 (1991)).”

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