State v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 179 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 183 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably State v. Pena (1994), State v. Carter (1989)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 179 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 Gregg v. Georgia · Pulley v. Harris · Michelson v. United States · Boyd v. United States · State v. Knight
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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) In these sentencing proceedings, evidence may be presented as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentence, including but not limited to the nature and circumstances of the crime, the defendant's character, background, history, mental and physical condition, and any other facts in aggravation or mitigation of the penalty. Any evidence the court deems to have probative force may be received regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence. The state’s attorney and the defendant shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death. Aggravating circumstances shall include those as outlined in 76-5-202. Mitigating circumstances shall include the following: (a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity; (b) The murder was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; (c) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person; (d) At the time of the murder, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his [or her] conduct or to conform his [or her] conduct to the requirement of law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease, intoxication, or influence of drugs; (e) The youth of the defendant at the time of the crime; (f) The defendant was an accomplice in the murder committed by another person and his [or her] participation was relatively minor; and (g) Any other fact”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, evidence regarding the underlying crime should be admitted, and the jury should be asked to determine guilt or innocence based on that evidence alone. Second, if a guilty verdict is returned on the underlying charge, then evidence regarding the enhancing circumstances should be heard by the same jury for the purpose of determining whether those circumstances have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Only if the jury finds that the circumstances have been proven would the "convicted person" [subsequently amended to read "the accused"] receive the enhanced penalty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Wareham · State v. Reed“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Bell · State v. Florez
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.