State v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If evidence has been presented which would support a conviction of a lesser charge, refusal to give the requested instruction would be reversible error.... There must be sufficient evidence,[ 2 ]however, when read in the light most favorable to the defendant, which would justify a jury in concluding that the greater offense was not committed and that a lesser offense was, in fact, committed.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Charger · State v. Gregg

2. “As Everett examined his losses, Garcia said they made plans. Garcia offered, “Let’s get in the car and take off,” to which Woods replied, “No, he’s already got my license number.” Woods then said, “Well, I don’t want to get caught so we’re going to have to shoot him.” Woods asked Garcia if he would like to shoot Everett and when Garcia said he could not, Woods said, “Well, I’m going to have to do it.” Woods then approached the back door, peeked through the window, and waited for Everett with his gun drawn. Garcia testified that Woods then swung the door open, stepped in, and fired. This shot ended the life of James Everett.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Woods v. Solem · Woods v. Solem

3. “Appellant Woods was a gun-wielding burglar who entered Everett’s house not once — but twice — to steal therefrom. It is therefore beyond contention that Woods was the aggressor. Generally, the aggressor, or the one who produces the circumstances which make it neces- . sary to take another’s life, is not entitled to assert self-defense. When Everett surprisingly returned and Woods ran from the home, the burglary was not over and Woods was not suddenly restored to his pre-aggression right of self-defense. ... Woods, the burglar, who could have driven his car away after Everett returned, can hardly claim danger to himself by remaining on the premises and stalking the homeowner by peering through the window — waiting for the opportunity to kill. 3 Appellant wishes to elevate himself, in law, to a self-defense status such as that belonging to Everett. This cannot be. The trial court’s refusal to instruct on justifiable homicide was not in error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Woods v. Solem