State v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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 passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ivy

2. “Questions regarding the qualifications, admissibility, relevancy, and competency of expert testimony are matters left within the broad discretion of the trial court. See McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d [257, 263-64 (Tenn.1997)]; State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn.1993). On appellate review, the trial court’s ruling shall not be overturned absent a finding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting or excluding the expert testimony. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d at 562 . “An appellate court should find an abuse of discretion when it appears that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 955 S.W.2d 662 , 669 (Tenn.1997).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. GSB Contractors, Inc. v. Hess

3. “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. The court shall disallow testimony in the form of an opinion or in ference if the underlying facts or data indicate lack of trustworthiness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp.