Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(b) On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the court shall submit the following issues to the jury: "(1) * * * “(2) * * * "(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased....””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Cumbo v. State · Phillips v. State

2. “... a juror’s willingness to demand of the state that it prove each allegation submitted pursuant to Art. 37.071 beyond a reasonable doubt is not equivalent to an assertion that the juror will consider the full range of punishment for the offense in question”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · Hernandez v. State

3. “Instruction No. 6 The phrase ‘mental disease or defect,’ as used in these instructions, means any mental abnormality, regardless of its medical label, origin or source except alcoholism without psychosis, drug abuse without psychosis or an abnormality manifested only by repeated anti-social conduct. In determining under other instructions given to you, whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the commission of the offense charged against him and, if so, the extent and effect of it, the jury may take into consideration all of the facts, circumstances and opinions given in evidence. However, it is for the jury alone to decide this issue under the law as given to you in these instructions. Instruction No. 7 If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on or about September 9, 1980, in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, the defendant caused the death of Karen Ann Roberts by striking her, and Second, that the defendant intended to take the life of Karen Ann Roberts, and Third, that the defendant knew that he was practically certain to cause the death of Karen Ann Roberts, and Fourth, that the defendant considered taking the life of Karen Ann Roberts and reflected upon this matter coolly and fully before doing so, and Fifth, that defendant is not entitled to be acquitted of the offense of capital murder by reason of Instruction No. 9, then you will find the defendant guilty of capital murder. However, if you do n”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith