State v. Mahaley’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. McCollum (1993), State v. Fair (2001)
102 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 · McKoy v. North Carolina · State v. Smith · McDougall v. North Carolina · State v. Coffey
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court is required to determine whether the evidence will support a rational jury finding that a defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. State v. Wilson, 322 N.C. 117 , 367 S.E.2d 589 (1988). If so, the trial court has no discretion; the statutory mitigating circumstance must be submitted to the jury, without regard to the wishes of the State or the defendant. State v. Lloyd, 321 N.C. 301 , 364 S.E.2d 316 , vacated on other grounds, 488 U.S. 807 , 102 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1988).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thompson · State v. Quick“The fact that the trial court substituted the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances that “the defendant has no history of violence or physical injury to others” and “the defendant has no record of criminal convictions” does not satisfy the State’s burden. The trial court’s submission of these two nonstatutory circumstances was inadequate because the trial court gave the jury the discretion, if it found either circumstance to exist, to determine “whether you deem this to have mitigating value.” As a result of this instruction, the jury was not required to give any weight to such nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. By contrast, if a jury determines that a statutory mitigating circumstance exists, it must give that circumstance mitigating value. State v. Fullwood, 323 N.C. 371 , 373 S.E.2d 518 (1988) [vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1022 , 108 L. Ed. 2d 602 (1990)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Quick“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.”
1 later decision 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.