Smith v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “We decline to address whether the Clayton rule applies to defense counsel during opening statements and cross-examination because it is not necessary to our holding.”
• “It is not unusual in a criminal case to rely upon circumstantial evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Kurzmann v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2006-07-13· cited 163×
• Baker v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2006-08-28· cited 95×
• Jones v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2007-12-12· cited 57×
• Wallace v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2008-08-01· cited 36×
• Wright v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2008-02-07· cited 32×
• Burns v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2009-05-04· cited 26×
• Page v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2007-10-10· cited 24×
• Milligan v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2015-06-10· cited 22×
• Sykes v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2008-01-24· cited 21×
• Allen v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2009-02-17· cited 20×
• Ashley v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2014-02-11· cited 20×
• Banther v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2009-07-29· cited 18×
• Williams v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2014-07-25· cited 17×
• Edwards v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2007-04-17· cited 15×
• Smith v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2010-03-30· cited 15×
• Stevenson v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2016-10-11· cited 13×
• Wonnum v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2007-12-26· cited 11×
• Coles v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2008-09-15· cited 10×
• Norwood v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2014-06-24· cited 9×
• Benson v. State
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 2014-12-01· cited 5×