State v. Starnes’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
35
cited by 35 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited
31 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Simmons v. South Carolina · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Attwood v. Singletary
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I charge you that the term “life imprisonment” means imprisonment until the death of the offender. No person sentenced to life imprisonment is eligible for parole, community supervision, or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, education credits, good conduct credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment required by law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The person was without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2) The person actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger; (3) A reasonable, prudent person would have entertained the same belief; (4) The circumstances were such as would warrant a person of ordinary prudence, firmness, and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save himself from serious bodily harm; and (5) The person had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Otts“You may consider the deceased’s conduct[,] actions and general demeanor immediately before the incident as bearing on the deceased’s temper and state of mind at the time of the fatal encounter[,] and the defendant does not have to show that he was actually in danger. It is enough if the defendant believed he was in imminent danger and a reasonably prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have had the same belief. The defendant has the right to act on appearances even though the defendant’s beliefs may have been mistaken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harris
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.