State v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant stepped into the van on the passenger side behind the driver’s and passenger’s seats. He then pointed a pistol toward Hippen’s face and said, “I want your money or I’m going to kill you.” He snatched the $100 bill from [the victim’s] hand. Hippen gave defendant his wallet, which contained $30. As defendant leaned over Hippen, [the victim] grabbed his arm and shoved it onto the console. Defendant fired a shot and the three men began to struggle over the gun. As the victim started the van and tried to drive away, the defendant “emptied” his gun at him. Injured, [the victim] fell from the van ... [and died].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Abdus-Samad v. Bell · State v. Boyd

2. “(a) it provides insufficient guidance to the jury concerning who has the burden of proving whether mitigation outweighs aggravation and what standard the jury should use in making that determination; (b) it fails to sufficiently narrow the class of death penalty eligible defendants; (c) it insufficiently limits the jury’s discretion in that once it finds an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, it can impose death, regardless of what mitigation is shown; (d) it requires that if the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, it must impose death; (e) it allows the jury to afford too little weight to non-statutory mitigating factors. The statute requires that the juty consider “any mitigating circumstances”; (f) it does not require the jury to make the ultimate determination that death is appropriate in that it is “merely filling in the blanks” in determining and comparing mitigating and aggravating circumstances.; (g) it does not inform the jury of its ability to impose mercy; (h) it provides no requirement that the jury make findings of fact as to the presence or absence of mitigating circumstances, thereby preventing effective appellate review; (i) it prohibits the jury from being informed of the consequences of its failure to reach a unanimous verdict in the penalty phase of the trial; (j) it allows the imposition of a cruel and unusual punishment and in that it allows death to be imposed by electrocution; (k) it has b”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bush

3. ““The statute cannot be taken out of context. T.C.A. § 39 — 2—203(f) integrates and complements sub-section (g) and specifically spells out where the burden of proof lies: (f) If the jury unanimously determines that no statutory aggravating circumstances have been proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt, or if the jury unanimously determines that a statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances have been proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt but that said circumstance or circumstances are outweighed by one or more mitigating circumstances, the sentence shall be life imprisonment. (Emphasis in original text). The statute, taken in context, clearly outlines where the burden of proof lies. This argument was rejected in State v. Thompson, 768 S.W.2d 239, 251-252 (Tenn.1989).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hurley