Burris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 17 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The question of whether appellant had committed a killing in the perpetration of a robbery in fact was found by the original trial jury. At that stage, it was not necessary that specific intent to kill be proved. Martinez Chavez v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 731 , reh’g denied, 539 N.E.2d 4 . The aggravating circumstance concerning appellant’s intent throughout the entire episode was a matter to be determined upon fixing the sentence. The United States Supreme Court has held that a capital sentence procedure will satisfy the narrowing requirement as long as it “narrows the class of death eligible murders and then at the sentencing phase allows for the consideration of mitigating circumstances and the exercise of discretion.” Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988), 484 U.S. 231, 247 , 108 S.Ct. 546, 555 , 98 L.Ed.2d 568, 583 . The Supreme Court has further held that findings authorizing the imposition of the death penalty need not be made by a jury. Walton v. Arizona (1990), 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct. 3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 .... As we stated previously in this opinion, the original jury in fact did find that appellant was guilty of deliberately killing a person in the perpetration of a robbery. In sentencing, it was the prerogative of the trial judge to make the determination as to the specific circumstances surrounding such a killing -in order to determine whether there was aggravation sufficient to sentence appellant to death. We do not agree with appellant’s attempt to distinguish W”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 948 F. Supp. 1310 - Burris v. Parke

2. “Appellant claims the language of the instruction would indicate to the jury that if they failed to recommend death the court would be required to impose a sentence of years. Taken alone, it would be possible for a person to reach such a conclusion from the wording of this instruction, and, of course, such an interpretation would be error. It is clear from the statute that the jury’s recommendation in this regard whether it be for the death penalty or against the death penalty is a recommendation only. The trial judge in this case was free to exercise her discretion as to whether to sentence appellant for a term of years or impose the death penalty. Although the language of the above instruction is not artfully drawn, when one considers it in conjunction with the other instructions given, it is clear the jury was properly informed that their recommendation was not binding on the trial court and that the court would fix the penalty within the parameters of the statute. We would further point out that appellant concedes that he did not present this objection to the trial court and that it would normally be waived, citing Ingram v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 823 . However, he asserts that the giving of the instruction above quoted is fundamental error. We cannot agree with appellant’s observation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 948 F. Supp. 1310 - Burris v. Parke

3. “The Supreme Court has further held that findings authorizing the imposition of the death penalty need not be made by a jury. Walton v. Arizona (1990), 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct. 3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 . Appellant attempts to distinguish Walton from the case at bar in that in Walton the specific findings authorizing the death penalty were not separate elements of the crime, whereas in this case he claims the issue of whether appellant personally and intentionally killed the victim is a determination that must be made by the jury--- We do not agree with appellant’s attempt to distinguish Walton .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 948 F. Supp. 1310 - Burris v. Parke