State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably State v. Tokar (1996), State v. Feltrop (1991)
4 federal appellate · 82 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 Wainwright v. Witt · Adams v. Texas · Grigsby v. Mabry · State v. Turner · State v. McDonald
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“INSTRUCTION NO. 19 If you decide that a sufficient aggravating circumstance or circumstances exist to warrant the imposition of death, as submitted in Instruction No. 18, it will then become your duty to determine whether a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstance exist which outweigh such aggravating circumstances (sic) or circumstances so found to exist. In deciding that question you may consider all of the evidence relating to the murder of James Anthony Michaels, Sr. You may also consider: 1. Whether the defendant acted under extreme duress or substantial domination of another person. 2. Whether the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law as substantially impaired. 3. The age of the defendant at the time of the offense. You may also consider that the defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the murder of James Anthony Michaels, Sr. You may also consider any circumstances which you find from the evidence in extenuation or mitigation punishment. If you unanimously decide that a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances exist which outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by you to exist, then you must return a verdict fixing defendant’s punishment as imprisonment for life by the Division of Corrections without eligibility for probation or parole until he has served a minimum of fifty years of his sentence. (L.F. 108)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The jury may consider extenuating or mitigating circumstances even though not set out as “statutory” mitigating circumstances in Section 565.012.3 and even though not “authorized by law” within the meaning of that phrase discussed in 4 above. However, no instruction should be given calling the jury’s attention to any particular circumstance referred to in general in this paragraph.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mathenia v. Delo · State v. Leisure“Judicial discretion is abused when the trial court’s ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration; if reasonable persons can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gardner
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.