green
Positive treatment
published
Issue: insanity defenseTX ↗
Issue: point for plain errorMO ↗
Issue: defendant may then properly claimOH ↗
Issue: section 15 determinative factorNC ↗
9.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Cited for
Other citing cases
- State v. Cedeno, 950 N.E.2d 582 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2011).published
- State v. Edwards, 652 S.E.2d 72 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).published
- State v. Patterson, 552 S.E.2d 246 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).published
- State v. Golphin, 533 S.E.2d 168 (N.C. 2000).published
- United States v. Tatum, 121 F. Supp. 2d 577 (E.D. Tex. 2000).published
- Steven Wesley Parkus v. Michael Bowersox, 157 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 1998).published
- Steven Parkus v. Michael Bowersox, No. 97-1983 (8th Cir. Oct. 5, 1998).published
- Cummings v. State, 1998 OK CR 45, 968 P.2d 821.published
- State v. Bishop, 472 S.E.2d 842 (N.C. 1996).published
- Allen v. State, 923 P.2d 613 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).published
Show 31 more citing cases
- Braun v. State, 909 P.2d 783 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).published
- State v. Hinchey, 890 P.2d 602 (Ariz. 1995).published
- State v. Walker, 893 S.W.2d 429 (Tenn. 1995).published
- State v. Bacon, 446 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 1994).published
- People v. Collins, 637 N.E.2d 480 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1994).published
- Motley v. Collins, 18 F.3d 1223 (5th Cir. 1994).published
- Anderson v. Collins, 18 F.3d 1208 (5th Cir. 1994).published
- Motley v. Collins, 3 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 1993).published
- Workman v. State, 868 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993).published
- U.S. v. Rojas-Martinez, 968 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1992).published
- United States v. Alberto Rojas-Martinez & Olavo Michel, Jr., United States of Am. v. Jose Carillo-Ruiz, Martin Casas-Acevedo, Efrain Gonzalez-Torres, Roberto Herrera, Miguel Herrera, & Alfredo Reyes-Marentes, 968 F.2d 415 (5th Cir. 1992).published
- United States v. Mildred Miller, 958 F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished
- State v. Faison, 411 S.E.2d 143 (N.C. 1991).published
- State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1991).published
- United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2012).published
- State v. Flaugher, 713 S.E.2d 576 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).published
- State v. Rankin, 663 S.E.2d 438 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).published
- Edmund Zagorski v. State of Tennessee, No. 01C01-9609-CC-00397 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 6, 2007).published
- Walters v. Maschner, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Iowa 2001).published
- State v. Hamilton, 519 S.E.2d 514 (N.C. 1999).published
- Lewis v. State, 1998 OK CR 24, 970 P.2d 1158.published
- Smith v. State, 932 P.2d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).published
- Commonwealth v. Yedinak, 676 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).published
- United States v. Scurlock, 52 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 1995).published
- Davis v. People, 871 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1994).published
- State v. Elliott, 633 N.E.2d 1144 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1993).published
- Pugliese v. Commonwealth, 428 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).published
- Chuck Lee Mathenia v. Paul Delo, 975 F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1992).published
- People v. Johnson, 233 Cal. App. 3d 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).published
- State v. Roper, 402 S.E.2d 600 (N.C. 1991).published
- Doyle J. Williams v. Bill Armontrout, 912 F.2d 924 (8th Cir. 1990).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ashford
v.
Illinois Stewart v. Illinois Emerson v. Illinois Orange v. Illinois Green v. North Carolina Hendricks v. California Hawkins v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections Landry v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections Barber v. Tennessee Parkus v. Missouri Wade v. California Williams v. California Rojem v. Oklahoma Mercer v. Armontrout, Warden Coleman v. Ohio
v.
Illinois Stewart v. Illinois Emerson v. Illinois Orange v. Illinois Green v. North Carolina Hendricks v. California Hawkins v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections Landry v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections Barber v. Tennessee Parkus v. Missouri Wade v. California Williams v. California Rojem v. Oklahoma Mercer v. Armontrout, Warden Coleman v. Ohio
No. 87-7118; No. 87-7119; No. 87-7136; No. 87-7137; No. 87-7174; No. 88-5074; No. 88-5131; No. 88-5198; No. 88-5300; No. 88-5310; No. 88-5314; No. 88-5330; No. 88-5383; No. 88-5393; No. 88-5440.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1988.
Published opinion
488 U.S. 900
Brennan, Marshall.
Published
Lead Opinion
Sup. Ct. 111.; Sup. Ct. Ill,; Sup. Ct. 111.; Sup. Ct. Ill; Sup. Ct. N. C.; Sup. Ct. Cal.; C. A. 5th Cir.; C. A. 5th Cir.; Sup. Ct. Tenn.; Sup. Ct. Mo.; Sup. Ct. Cal.; Sup. Ct. Cal.; Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; C. A. 8th Cir.; and Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
Dissent
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.