State v. Teel’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably State v. Bland (1997), State v. Hall (1997)
2 federal appellate · 66 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Wainwright v. Witt · Sandstrom v. Montana · Lockhart v. McCree
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who commits first-degree murder is guilty of a crime. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements: that the defendant unlawfully killed the alleged victim; and that the killing was committed in the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate the alleged Rape; that is, that the killing was closely connected to the alleged Rape and was not a separate, distinct and independent event; and that the defendant intended to commit the alleged Rape. The definition of Rape shall be defined to you later in this charge. "Intentionally" means that the person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of the conduct or to a result of the conduct when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. . . . . Any person who commits the offense of rape is guilty of a crime. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements: that the defendant had unlawful sexual penetration of the alleged victim or the alleged victim had unlawful sexual penetration of the defendant; and that force or coercion was used to accomplish the act; or that the sexual penetration was accomplished without the consent of the alleged victim and the defendant knew, or had reason to know, at the time of the penetration that the alleged victim did no”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rice“[t]he law is unsettled as to whether harmless error analysis is available when a trial court fails to instruct on an essential element of an offense,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Teel v. Tennessee“the aggravating circumstances found are clearly those allowed by the statute and permit effective appellate review of the sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McKinney
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.