98 Ill. 2d 439 - People v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

125 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whether the murder is committed in association with the actual completion of the aggravating felony or only with the attempted felony is not crucial. The aggravating factor which triggers the application of the death penalty statute is that the murder be committed "in the course of’ the aggravating felony. A murder may be committed "in the course of’ an armed robbery whether or not the actual armed robbery is consummated. An essential element of an attempt is that the accused perform "any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the the commission of that offense.” It is a question of fact whether "[an] act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of’ armed robbery constitutes "in the course of’ an armed robbery, so that that act becomes an aggravating factor authorizing imposition of the death penalty. We again emphasize that the death penalty statute specifies as an aggravating factor that the murder be committed "in the course of’ one of the listed felonies. The statute does not require that the other felony be completed or that the defendant be charged with or convicted of the other felony or an attempted felony. The death penalty statute does require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating factor, that is, that the murder was committed "in the course of’ the armed robbery .... This is so whether the defendant has been convicted of armed robbery . . ., or of attempted armed robbery. It is establishing that the murder was commi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 126 Wash. 2d 136 - State v. Brett · State v. Humphries

2. ““[Wfhere testimony in a murder case respecting the fact that the deceased has left a spouse and family is not elicited incidentally, but is.presented in such a manner as to cause the jury to believe it is material, its admission is highly prejudicial and constitutes reversible error unless an objection thereto is sustained and the jury instructed to disregard such evidence. In like manner we have held that jury argument by the prosecution which dwells upon the decedent’s family or seeks to relate a defendant’s punishment to the existence of family is inflammatory and improper. People v. Gregory, 22 Ill. 2d 601 ; People v. Dukes 12 Ill. 2d 334 .” (Emphasis added.) (People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 359, 371 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 116 Ill. 2d 265 - People v. Hope

3. ““If you unanimously find from your consideration of all the evidence that there are no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of a death sentence, then you should sign the verdict requiring the court to sentence the defendant to death. If you do not unanimously find from your consideration of all the evidence that there are no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of a death sentence, then you should sign the verdict requiring the court to impose a sentence other than death.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 145 Ill. 2d 127 - People v. Gosier