State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 128 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is well established that the trial court has wide discretion in determining the qualifications of a venireman, and its decision thereon will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion and real probability of injury to the complaining party. State v. Betts, 642 S.W.2d 604 (Mo. banc 1982). A clear line cannot be drawn for all cases as to when a challenge for cause should be sustained; there will be instances in which an appellate court might have done differently but cannot say there was an abuse of discretion; each case must be judged on its particular facts; a determination by the trial judge of the qualifications of a prospective juror necessarily involves a judgment based on observation of his demeanor and, considering that observation, an evaluation and interpretation of the answers as they relate to whatever the venireman would be fair and impartial if chosen as a juror. State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16, 22-23 (Mo. banc 1972). Because the trial judge is better positioned to make that determination than are we from the cold record, doubts as to the trial court’s findings will be resolved in its favor. State v. Engleman, 634 S.W.2d [466, 472 (Mo. banc 1982)].”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Leisure · State v. Shire

2. “The purpose of voir dire is to enable each party to participate in selection of a fair and impartial jury and to that end, wide latitude is allowed in examination of the panel. During voir dire the defendant should be permitted to develop not only facts which might manifest bias and form the basis of a challenge for cause, but also such facts as might be useful to him in detecting the possibility of bias and intelligently utilizing his peremptory challenges. Nevertheless, the examination of jurors as to their qualifications is conducted under the supervision of the trial court and the nature and extent of the questions counsel may ask are discretionary with that court. Rulings of the trial court during voir dire will be disturbed on appeal only when the record shows an abuse of discretion, and a real probability of injury to the complaining party. (Citations omitted.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Foulk · State v. Counts

3. ““In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976), the United States Supreme Court upheld the facial validity of a provision substantially indistinguishable from § 565.012.2(7) against Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges. As no authority is advanced for a different interpretation of Missouri’s Constitution, we see no reason to reconsider our rejection of defendant’s claim in State v. Blair, 638 S.W.2d 739, 758 (Mo. banc 1982), and State v. Newlon, 627 S.W.2d 606, 621 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 884 , 103 S.Ct. 185 , 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982). In addition [,], it has been held in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980), that capital murder statutes must be construed in a manner that the nature of a crime and all of the circumstances justify imposition [of] the death penalty so as not to violate a defendant’s rights to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and the due process of law. In Godfrey , a death sentence based on the single aggravating circumstance that two murders were ‘outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhumane in that [they] ... involved ... depravity of mind’ was reversed when it could not be said the crimes ‘reflected a consciousness materially more ‘depraved’ than that of any person guilty of murder.’ 446 U.S. at 433 , 100 S.Ct. at 1767 . In this case, however, defendant’s sentence was not predicated upon a general finding of depravity of mind. On the form in which defendant’s ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Armontrout · 692 F. Supp. 1079 - Smith v. Armontrout