Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably State v. Skillicorn (1997), Scisney v. State (1998)
1 federal appellate · 24 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 Terry v. Ohio · Chapman v. State of California · Maryland v. Buie · Brooks v. State · Lindsey 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) It is a defense that: (1) The prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in a conduct; and (2) The person was not predisposed to commit the offense. (b) Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dockery v. State · McGowan v. State“'[Tlhere must be articulable facts which, taken together with the ra tional inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Estep · Taylor v. State“It is clear that in order to rebut the defense of entrapment the state must show two things; i.e., first, that the level of police activity was not such that it would persuasively affect the free will of the accused, and second, that the accused was predisposed to commit the offense. Part (b) of the statute is explanatory of the level of police activity that would be necessary to support the entrapment defense but this section does not negate the requirement of the necessary predisposition on the part of the accused. We have consistently held that if the accused had the predisposition to commit the crime and the police merely afforded him an opportunity to do so, then the defense of entrapment is not available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McGowan v. State
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.