660 So. 2d 1228 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

161 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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument of the prosecuting attorney is to create an unjust prejudice against the accused as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dancer v. State · Wilson v. State

2. “Any allegedly improper prosecutorial remark must be evaluated taking into consideration the circumstances of the case when determining the comment's propriety.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dancer v. State · Westbrook v. State

3. “Davis' argument here is two fold: (1) should the sentencing jury be instructed that there is a presumption that there are no aggravating circumstances until proved beyond a reasonable doubt?; and (2) should the sentencing jury be clearly instructed that aggravating circumstances must outweigh mitigating circumstances in order to impose a sentence of death? Failure to instruct the jury accordingly, Davis argues, constitutes reversible error. Sentencing Instruction S-1 reads in relevant part: You must unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that one or more of the preceding aggravating circumstance[s] exists in this case to return the death penalty. If none of these aggravating circumstances are found to exist, the death penalty may not be imposed, and you shall write the following verdict on a sheet of paper: .... This part of Instruction S-1 informs the jurors that no aggravating circumstances exist unless the jury finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they exist. Accordingly, Davis' first contention is without merit. Davis' second contention is foreclosed by this Court's recent decision in Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239 (Miss. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 927 , 115 S.Ct. 314 , 130 L.Ed.2d 276 (1994). Conner, like Davis, argued "that a proper instruction would permit imposition of the death penalty only where the jury finds that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances, not vice versa." Conner, 632 So.2d at 1278 . See also Shell v. State, 554 So.2d ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · 703 So. 2d 269 - Berry v. State