463 So. 2d 1028 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2013
10 state decisions
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
Relies on 297 So. 2d 888 - Pittman v. State · Robinson v. State · Bangren v. State · 289 So. 2d 685 - Patterson v. State · 346 So. 2d 912 - Cooley v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court instructs the Jury that every killing of a human being without authority of law and not in necessary self-defense, is either Murder or Manslaughter; Murder when done with malice aforethought and Manslaughter when done without malice aforethought in the heat of passion and not in necessary self-defense. Thus, if you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, JAMES L. STOOP, killed Marvin C. Williams, without authority of law and not in necessary self-defense with his malice aforethought then in that event you should find the defendant guilty of Murder as charged. In the event you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed Marvin C. Williams without authority of law and not in necessary self-defense without malice aforethought and in the heat of passion then in that event you should find the defendant guilty of Manslaughter. If the State has failed to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant not guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stoop v. State“The defendant, Phuc Hoang Tran, has been charged by an indictment with the crime of Murder for having caused the death of Chi Phuong Ho, with the deliberate design to kill Chi Phuong Ho. If you find from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about June 21, 1990 in the Second Judicial District of Harrison County, Mississippi, that: A. The deceased, Chi Phuong Ho, was a living person, and B. The defendant, Phuc Hoang Tran, while acting alone or in concert with another, did willfully and of his deliberate design kill Chi Phuong Ho by shooting him with a shotgun; and C. That said shooting was not in necessary self defense, then you shall find the defendant guilty of Murder. If the State has failed to prove any one or more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find the defendant, Phuc Hoang Tran, not guilty of murder.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Another homicide less than murder is the killing of another in the heat of passion, without malice aforethought!,] and is generally referred to as “manslaughter.” It does not justify a homicide as does self-defense but[,] rather[,] reduces the greater crime of murder to the lesser crime of manslaughter because “malice aforethought” is lacking. Manslaughter does not exonerate the homicide but requires a sentence less than that for murder.”
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.