State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably State v. Odom (1996), State v. Stephenson (1994)
3 federal appellate · 42 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 Bruton v. United States · Parker v. Randolph · State v. Williams · State v. Duncan · State v. Dicks
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.
“[T]he only mandatory instructions with respect to mitigating circumstances are that those statutory circumstances which are raised by the evidence shall be expressly charged, and the jury must be told that they shall weigh and consider any other facts or circumstances that are raised by the evidence that they find to be mitigating circumstances, in making the determination of which circumstances, aggravating or mitigating, outweigh the other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Odom · State v. Cauthern“Tennessee law provides that no sentence of death or sentence of imprisonment shall be imposed by a jury but upon unanimous finding that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more statutory aggravating circumstances. The jury resumed their deliberations, and, three hours later reached its verdict imposing a sentence of death. The Appellant now submits that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury accurate sentencing information as to the consequence of their failure to reach a verdict. He argues that the trial court’s failure to properly respond to the jury’s question “gives rise to a reasonable probability of a coerced verdict.” Contemporaneously, he asks this Court to find section 39 — 13—204(h), Tennessee Code Annotated, unconstitutional in the context of the present case. The trial court adhered to legislative direction in its instruction to the jury. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-204(0(1), (2); - 204(g)(1). The trial court further respected the legislature’s admonition contained in section 39-13-204(h), Tennessee Code Annotated, “The judge shall not instruct the jury, nor shall the attorneys be permitted to comment at any time to the jury, on the effect of the jury’s failure to agree on a punishment.” In this regard, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by refusing to ignore legislative directive. The Appellant also attacks the failure to fully inform the jury as to the consequences if the jury fails to reach a unanimous ver”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ivy
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.