State v. Sessions’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably State v. Wood (1982), State v. Diaz (1993)
28 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 People v. Wells · People v. Anderson · State v. Padilla · 261 Cal. App. 2d 149 - People v. Chapman · State v. Green
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he trier of fact should have the benefit of whatever evidence bears on the intent of a defendant when specific intent or purpose is an element of the crime. Therefore, ... basic rules of evidence pertaining to materiality and relevance require that a defendant have the right to adduce evidence which would tend to disprove the existence of a specific intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lindgren · Adams v. State“`[I]t is not error [for the trial court] to refuse a proposed instruction if the point is properly covered in the other instructions.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Mitigating circumstances shall include the following: (a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity; (b) The murder was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; (c) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person; (d) At the time of the murder, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirement of law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease, intoxication, or influence of drugs; (e) The youth of the defendant at the time of the crime; (f) The defendant was an accomplice in the murder committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor; (g) And any other fact in mitigation of the penalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Young
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.