State v. Plummer’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Sullivan (1996), State v. Bowens (1998)
38 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 Strickland v. Washington · Ross v. Oklahoma · Barrett v. United States · MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Oklahoma v. New Mexico
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state is permitted to argue such propositions as the prevalence of crime in the community and the personal safety of its inhabitants, and such pleas may call upon common experience. State v. Clemmons, 753 S.W.2d 901, 909 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948 , 109 S.Ct. 380 , 102 L.Ed.2d 369 (1988). The state may further argue that conviction of the defendant is part of the jury’s duty to prevent crime. [State v.] Debler, 856 S.W.2d [641] at 651 [ (Mo. banc 1993) ]. The prosecutor may refer to the need for strong law enforcement as a deterrent to crime and infer the effect of the jury’s failure to perform its duty and uphold the law. State v. Gilmore, 681 S.W.2d 934, 944 (Mo. banc 1984). All of the above are legitimate arguments, as long as the prosecutor stays within the record and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom and does not make an inflammatory appeal to the jurors to arouse their personal hostility toward or personal fear of the defendant, such as implanting in their minds the fear that the defendant’s acquittal will endanger their own personal safety or that of one of their family members. State v. Evans, 406 S.W.2d 612, 616-17 (Mo.1966); State v. Steward, 564 S.W.2d 95, 98-99 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Heinrich, 492 S.W.2d 109, 114 (Mo.App.1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sumlin“In all criminal cases, a list of the jurors found by the court to be qualified to sit in the case shall be forthwith delivered by the clerk of the court to the attorney for the state who shall thereupon and within such time as may be directed by the court, announce or indicate the challenges for the state. The jury list, -with the state’s challenges indicated thereon, shall then be forthwith delivered to the defendant or his attorney, who shall thereupon announce or indicate his challenges and return the list into court within such time as may be ordered by the court, and the remaining twelve ... shall be the jury to try the cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An appellate court should rarely grant relief on assertions that the trial court plainly erred in not sua sponte taking remedial action during closing argument. [State v.] Watson, 839 S.W.2d [611] at 617 [ (Mo.App.1992) ]. In the absence of a specific request for relief, any action taken by the trial court is uninvited interference with summation and may itself be error. Id. Substantial latitude is allowed during closing argument and, under plain error review, improper argument does not justify relief unless the defendant has demonstrated that the argument had a decisive effect on the jury. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sumlin
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.