Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 N.C. 229 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably State v. Conaway (1995), State v. Grooms (2000)

2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

440199420002010decided

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 Arizona v. Fulminante · Wainwright v. Witt · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Woodson v. North Carolina

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

  1. ““in a criminal case every circumstance calculated to throw any light upon the supposed crime is admissible and permissible. It is not required that evidence bear directly on the question in issue, and evidence is competent and relevant if it is one of the circumstances surrounding the parties, and necessary to be known, to properly understand their conduct or motives, or if it reasonably allows the jury to draw an inference as to a disputed fact.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Hearing the argument of the prosecution coupled with the court’s instruction we do not believe a reasonable juror could understand the argument to call for the jury to disregard mitigating evidence simply because it appeals to a person’s sympathies. The argument attempts to and serves to reinforce tbe responsibility of the jury to reach its decision based on the evidence and the law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[A] mitigating circumstance is a fact, or a group of facts which do not constitute a justification or excuse for a killing, or reduce it to a lesser degree of crime than first degree murder, but which may be considered as extenuating, or reduces the moral culpability of the killing, and makes it less deserving of extreme punishment than other first degree murders.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.