58 Md. App. 249 - Cunningham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Dykes v. State (1990), Simmons v. State (1988)
44 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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · Texas v. Louisiana · Drews v. Maryland · 28 Md. App. 640 - Evans v. State · Calhoun 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As observed in this regard in Bartram v. State, supra, at 33 Md.App. [115] 175, 364 A.2d 1119 [1976], “The blood, however, must indeed be hot and, generally speaking, only the hot-blooded killer can attest to that.” The appellant here took the stand in his own defense and testified unequivocally that he shot the victim not in hot-blooded rage, but because he feared that if he did not kill in self-defense, he would be killed or grievously wounded himself. His abject failure to provide evidence of hotblooded motivation, as to which he was the best if not exclusive source, is as fatal here as was a similar failure to provide such indispensable evidence in Bartram v. State: “In the circumstances of this case, only the appellant could have injected evidence as to an intentional but hot-blooded killing. She, however, stoutly maintained that the killing was suicidal.” 33 Md.App. at 175 , 364 A.2d 1119 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[TJhere may be a homicide which would otherwise be murder which is reduced to manslaughter by circumstances of alleviation or mitigation. Such a case is where the circumstances surrounding the homicide establish that it was provoked. For the ‘Rule of Provocation’ to be invoked there are four requirements: (1) There must have been adequate provocation; (2) The killing must have been in the heat of passion; (3) It must have been a sudden heat of passion — that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool; (4) There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“all of the testimony established] unequivocally that the appellant was the aggressor and there was no shred of evidence to indicate otherwise,” there was”
2 later decisions 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.