State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[P]rosecutors must not argue to the jury that a defendant has requested that a particular mitigating circumstance be submitted or has sought to have the jury find that circumstance, when the defendant has in fact objected to the submission of that particular mitigating circumstance. Additionally, the better practice when a defendant has objected to the submission of a particular mitigating circumstance is for the trial court to instruct the jury that the defendant did not request that the mitigating circumstance be submitted. In such instances, the trial court also should inform the jury that the submission of the mitigating circumstance is required as a matter of law because there is some evidence from which the jury could, but is not required to, find the mitigating circumstance to exist.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hurst · State v. Bell

2. “"The test governing the decision to submit the (f)(1) mitigator is 'whether a rational jury could conclude that defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity.' 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."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bell · State v. Bell

3. “In Enmund , “the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a defendant who aids and abets in the commission of a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others, when the defendant does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed.” State v. McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 223 , 433 S.E.2d 144, 151 (1993), cert. denied, [512] U.S. [1254], 129 L. Ed. 2d 895 , 114 S. Ct. 2784 (1994). A later case, Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 95 L. Ed. 2d 127 , 107 S. Ct. 1676 (1987), limited the holding in Enmund to exclude defendants who were major participants in a felony that results in death when their actions constituted reckless indifference to human life.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 N.C. App. 661 - State v. Hightower