637 So. 2d 398 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 672 So. 2d 116 - State v. Tart (1996), 708 So. 2d 703 - State v. Williams (1998)
30 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Estelle v. McGuire · Holland v. United States
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a serious doubt for which you could give a good reason”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bolden · State v. Kelly“One might conclude that the United States Supreme Court has retrenched from its position in Cage . ... In reviewing a suspect jury charge on reasonable doubt, we now are instructed ... to determine whether it is reasonably likely that an instruction was applied improperly, rather than whether it is only possible that the misapplication occurred. Mere conjecture concerning a juror's response to a charge, a conjecture encouraged in Cage , is no longer favored. Not only did that Court change the standard for the review of an allegedly erroneous jury charge on reasonable doubt (from that recited in Cage ), but they also seem to have drawn a fine line to distinguish the similarly suspect reasonable doubt charges in California and in Nebraska from the one given in Cage . (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Kelly“The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course. Indeed, so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof. Rather, taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith
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.