State v. Melson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 126 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`the reliability of the source and the information must be judged from all the circumstances and from the entirety of the affidavit'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Jessie Dotson · State v. Day

2. “Our statute provides that it is the murder which must be especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. The second clause of this statutory provision, viz., “... in that it involved torture or depravity of mind,” qualifies, limits and restricts the preceding words “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.” This second clause means that to show that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel the State must prove that it involved torture of the victim or depravity of mind of the killer. “Torture” means the infliction of severe physical or mental pain upon the victim while he or she remains alive and conscious. In proving that such torture occurred, the State, necessarily, also proves that the murder involved depravity of mind of the murderer, because the state of mind of one who willfully inflicts such severe physical or mental pain on the victim is depraved. However, we hold that “depravity of mind” may, in some circumstances, be shown although torture, as hereinabove defined, did not occur. If acts occurring after the death of the victim are relied upon to show depravity of mind of the murderer, such acts must be shown to have occurred so close to the time of the victim’s death, and must have been of such a nature, that the inference can be fairly drawn that the depraved state of mind of the murderer existed at the time the fatal blows were inflicted upon the victim. This is true because it is the murderer’s state of mind at the time of the killing which must be shown to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Payne v. Bell

3. “Since there was no warrant, we must pass upon the validity of the arrest under the statute permitting an officer to make a warrantless arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable or probable cause to believe that the arres-tee committed the felony. [Citation omitted]. It is conceded that probable cause must be more than mere suspicion, West v. State, 221 Tenn. 178 , 425 S.W.2d 602 (1968), but neither must it be absolute certainty, Grey v. State, 542 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976). Reasonable or probable cause consists of grounds which would lead a reasonable man to believe that the person arrested was guilty of the felony, Davis v. State, 2 Tenn.Cr.App. 297, 453 S.W.2d 438 (1969). In Davis , we quoted from Jones v. State, 161 Tenn. 370 , 33 S.W.2d 59 (1930), wherein it was stated: “In Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964), the [United States Supreme] Court stated: ‘whether the arrest was constitutionally valid depends ... upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it—whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed ... an offense.’ ””

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