Shaffer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 860 So. 2d 704 - Howell v. State (2003), 829 So. 2d 29 - Kolberg v. State (2002)
25 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 514 So. 2d 295 - Faraga v. State · 684 So. 2d 625 - Hunter v. State · Hamburg v. State · Windham v. State · City of Laurel v. Upton
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]nstructing the jury on every element of the charged crime is so basic to our system of justice that it should be enforced by reversal in every case where inadequate instructions are given, regardless of a failure to object or making a different objection at trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] conviction is not valid where the prosecution does not prove each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Just as the State must prove each element of the offense, the jury must be correctly and fully instructed regarding each element of the offense charged. Neal, 451 So.2d at 757 n. 9. Failure to submit to the jury the essential elements of the crime is "fundamental" error. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 107 , 65 S.Ct. 1031, 1038 , 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945) (emphasis added). In capital murder cases, the trial court is "required to instruct just as fully regarding the definition of [the underlying crime] as it [is] on murder." Id. Indeed, "[i]t is axiomatic that a jury's verdict may not stand upon uncontradicted fact alone. The fact must be found via jury instructions correctly identifying the elements of the offense under the proper standards." "Where the jury had incorrect or incomplete instructions regarding the law, our review task is nigh unto impossible and reversal is generally required." Henderson v. State, 660 So.2d 220, 222 (Miss.1995); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 , 757 n. 9 (Miss.1984); see also Watson v. State, 465 So.2d 1025, 1031 (Miss. 1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.