Marshall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-97-102 (Supp. 1999) provides that “when either party requests to present evidence relevant to sentencing^ the court shall hear or receive such evidence and any rebuttal by the opposing party.'...” ■ Id. Evidence relevant to sentencing may include, but is not limited to, prior convictions of the defendant, victim-impact evidence or statements, relevant character evidence and evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstance. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-97-103 (Supp. 1999). In sum, it is anticipated that the trial judge, when sitting as the sentencing body,'will accept all relevant evidence on the question of sentencing. Id. It is presumed that a trial judge will only consider competent evidence. Clinkscale v. State, 269 Ark. 324 , 602 S.W.2d 618 (1980). This presumption can be overcome only when there is an indication that the judge gave some consideration To inadmissible evidence. Id.”

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