Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 339 N.C. 114 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 146 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. Bishop (1997), State v. White (1995)

3 federal appellate · 146 state decisions

730199420002010decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Lockett v. Ohio · Wainwright v. Witt · Ake v. Oklahoma · Eddings v. Oklahoma

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

  1. ““In deciding whether to submit this statutory mitigating circumstance, the trial court must determine whether a rational jury could conclude that the defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity. A defendant’s criminal history is considered “significant” if it is likely to affect or have an influence upon the determination by the jury of its recommended sentence.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to give the defendant’s requested preliminary instruction. By utilizing the pattern instruction, a trial court accurately and sufficiently explains the bifurcated nature of a capital trial, avoids potential prejudice to the defendant, and helps to insure the uniformity of jury instructions for all trials.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Counsel may not pose hypothetical questions which are designed to elicit from prospective jurors what their decision might be under a given state of facts. Such questions are improper because they tend to "stake out" a juror and cause him to pledge himself to a decision in advance of the evidence to be presented.”
    2 later decisions 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.