Beasley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Ben-Yisrayl v. State (1997), Williams v. State (2000)
23 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 Zickefoose v. State · Spradlin v. State · Jackson v. State · Greer v. State · Hill 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A PERSON ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT A CRIME WHEN HE KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY ENGAGES IN CONDUCT THAT CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL STEP TOWARD THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME IS A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR OF THE SAME CLASS AS THE CRIME ATTEMPTED. THE CRIME OF MURDER IS DEFINED BY STATUTE AS FOLLOWS: A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY KILLS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING COMMITS MURDER. TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, THE STATE MUST HAVE PROVED EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: THE DEFENDANT JAMES L. WILSON 1. KENOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY 2. ENGAGED IN CONDUCT BY KNOWINGLY SHOOTING A DEADLY WEAPON; TO-WIT A HANDGUN AT AND AGAINST THE PERSON OF FRANK DEWEY POSKON. 3. WHICH CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL STEP TOWARD THE KNOWING OR INTENTIONAL KILLING OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. IF THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE EACH OF THE ELEMENTS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE FOUND NOT GUILTY. IF THE STATE DID PROVE EACH OF THE ELEMENTS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN YOU SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER, A CLASS A FELONY.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. State · Clay v. State“An instruction that purports to set forth the elements required for an attempted murder conviction must . . . specifically state that the jury is required to find that the defendant intended to kill the victim. Instructing the jury with a list of elements which suggests that it may convict on a lesser mens rea, such as "knowingly," constitutes error.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McCann v. State · Martin v. State“The defendant 1. killed 2. another human being [name] 3. while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape, or robbery. If the State failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If the State did prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder, a felony. # a " # "k a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Channell v. State
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.