State v. Workman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 35 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant argues that he was never in lawful custody and could not therefore be guilty of this aggravating circumstance. On this point, the evidence shows that Lt. Oliver and the defendant came out of Wendy’s together, and that the defendant did not make a break for freedom until outside the building. After that, Stoddard and Oliver had the defendant in their grasp immediately before the defendant shot and killed Lt. Oliver. Evidently, the jury found that Lt. Oliver had arrested the defendant while inside of Wendy’s and had him in custody when defendant made his first break for freedom. We think this is sufficient to justify the jury finding that the defendant committed the murder “during his escape from lawful custody.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Workman v. Bell · Workman v. Bell

2. “a) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to two (2) or more persons, other than the victim murdered, during the act of murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203 (i)(3); b) The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203 (i)(6); c) The murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing, or was an accomplice in the commission of, or was attempting to commit, or was fleeing after committing or attempting to commit, the offense of robbery, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-203 (i)(7); d) The murder was committed by the defendant while in lawful custody or in a place of lawful confinement or during the defendant’s escape from lawful custody or from a lawful place of confinement, Tenn.Code Ann. § 39 — 2—203(i)(8); and e) The murder was committed against any law enforcement officer, corrections official, corrections employee or firefighter, who was engaged in the performance of official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was a law enforcement officer, corrections official, corrections employee or firefighter engaged in the performance of official duties, TenmCode Ann. § 39-2-203(i)(9).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Workman v. Bell · Workman v. Bell

3. “The defendant testified at the trial and admitted both the robbery and the killing, but tried to show he was a drug addict and under the influence of drugs at the time of the crimes. He insisted he was trying to give up when he was ‘hit or grabbed’ by the officers, and that it was after that that he shot Stoddard and Oliver. He also testified that he could only remember ‘bits’ and ‘pieces’ of the events of the evening. On the introduction of evidence that defendant was holding his head as he fled the murder scene and that a flashlight was found on the Wendy’s parking lot, the defense filed a motion that the state produce any evidence it had that the defendant had been hit in the head with a flashlight by the victim. The evidence was to be used by the defendant either to show self-defense or to mitigate the killing by proving defendant was stunned when he pulled the trigger. The trial court denied the motion, correctly pointing out that the evidence was irrelevant to defendant’s guilt or innocence under Smith v. State, 209 Tenn. 499 , 364 S.W.2d 450 (1961) (Self-defense no defense to felony murder), and while it would bear on mitigating circumstances, the issue was moot in light of the admission by the state that it had no such evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Workman v. State · State v. Workman