Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here the Court is asked to render guidelines for determining the admissibility of prior felony records to establish aggravating circumstances under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101 (5)(b) (Supp. 1986). This Court has announced the following procedure in Phillips v. State, 421 So.2d 476 (Miss. 1982). In Phillips , the prosecution sought to use a prior Kentucky conviction to enhance the defendant's punishment under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81 , as amended. The defendant objected to the use of the Kentucky conviction alleging that the conviction was invalid because he had not "knowingly and voluntarily" plead guilty. In response to Phillips' argument, this Court held that the trial judge is not required to go beyond the face of the prior convictions sought to be used in establishing a defendant's status as an habitual offender. "If on its face, the conviction makes a proper showing that a defendant's prior plea of guilty was both knowing and voluntary, that conviction may be used for the enhancement of the defendant's punishment under the Mississippi Habitual Offender Act." Phillips, 421 So.2d at 481 . See also, Moore v. State, 508 So.2d 666 (Miss. 1987).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 612 So. 2d 342 - Culberson v. State · 533 So. 2d 1078 - Nixon v. State

2. “If perjury was committed, the defendant will be entitled to a new trial only if four factors are met. First, it must appear that the perjured testimony will probably change the result if a new trial is granted. Second, the perjury -must have been discovered after the trial. Third, the perjury must not have been discoverable before the trial by the exercise of due diligence. Fourth, the perjury must be on an issue that is material to the case and not be merely cumulative or impeaching.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kelvin D. Ashford v. State of Mississippi

3. “[t]he determination of whether a new trial should be granted must be made by the trial judge on a case by case basis, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 751 So. 2d 1060 - Skinner v. State