Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 106 Ill. 2d 186 - People v. Hoffer · 108 Ill. 2d 54 - People v. Almo · 112 Ill. 2d 396 - People v. Spears · 32 Ala. App. 644 - Gettings v. State · 111 Md. App. 401 - Harvey v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nder the common-law doctrine of transferred intent, [where] a defendant, who intends to kill one person but instead kills a bystander, is deemed the author of whatever kind of homicide would have been committed had he killed the intended victim.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Martinez v. State · Carter v. State“"The facts are set forth in the previously issued appellate opinions in this case. Of particular relevance here is that Carter, her boyfriend, Trevas Bell, and her good friend, Artimese Johnson, were involved in an altercation with a group composed of Tamiko Smith, Sheri Baker, and Marcus Cephas. Cephas attempted to push Carter, and Bell began fighting with Cephas. As the two men tussled on the ground, Carter hit Cephas, and Cephas knocked Carter to the ground. Carter saw a 9mm pistol on the ground near her, and she picked it up and began firing.... Carter shot and killed Cephas and her friend, Artimese Johnson. She also shot and wounded her boyfriend, Bell."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carter v. State“the defendant's liability for the unintended consequences of a criminal act is in the same degree as it would have been had his aim been true and the intended target been injured or killed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carter v. State
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.