Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 382 S.W.2d 608 - State v. Baugh

State v. Baugh’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 1980
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1980

8 state decisions

50196419701980decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Escobedo v. Illinois · Hamilton v. Alabama · Betts v. Brady · White v. State of Maryland

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

  1. “On October 15, 1957, appellant was tried and convicted in the St. Louis Circuit Court as a habitual criminal of statutory rape. In accordance with the habitual criminal act then effective (Sections 556.280, 556.290, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.), the jury returned the mandatory sentence of imprisonment for life. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court en banc. State v. Baugh, 323 S.W.2d 685 . The basis of the proceeding here under consideration was an incident which occurred during the trial and which was not reported in the transcript on the appeal from the conviction. On October 15, 1957, after the case had been submitted to the jury and the jury had retired to the jury room for its deliberations, appellant’s trial counsel, Mr. C. Arthur Anderson, returned to his office to await the jury’s verdict. While Mr. Anderson was absent and appellant was in the custody of the sheriff, and about an hour after the jury had retired to consider its verdict, the following- transpired, as recorded in the notes of the official court reporter: (* * * ‘4:05 P.M. Jury returns to ask legal question. Present: Brady and Reardon for State. No one appearing for Defendant. Defendant appearing in person.’) THE COURT: Now, gentlemen of the jury, the sheriff has informed me that the jury desires to ask a legal question. While Mr. Anderson is not present, I think we can probably entertain your question and endeavor to answer it, even in his absence. A JUROR: Your Honor, the jury have not come to a verd”
    1 later decision 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.