State v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To constitute murder of the first degree the killing, as I say, must be accompanied by a clear, deliberate intent to take life. The intent to kill must be the result of deliberate premeditation and formed upon a preexisting reflection and not upon a sudden heat of passion to preclude the idea of deliberation. There need be, however, no appreciable space of time between the intention to kill and the act of killing. They may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. It is only necessary that the act of killing be preceded by and be the result of a concurrence of will, deliberation and premeditation on the part of the slayer. And if such is the case the killing is murder of the first degree, no matter how rapidly these acts of mind may succeed each other or how quickly they may be followed by the act of killing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sellers

2. ““In deciding whether defendant’s statements were voluntary, the trial court cannot apply the principles enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. [State of] Arizona [ 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ] because that decision only applies to trials began [sic] after June 13, 1966 * * *. See Johnson v. [State of] New Jersey [ 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 ] decided by the United States Supreme Court June 20, 1966. The trial court must apply the holding of Escobedo v. [State of] Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S. Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 as well as those cases outlining the traditional test of coercion including Davis v. [State of] North Carolina [ 384 U.S. 737 , 86 S.Ct. 1761 ] decided by the United States Supreme Court June 20, 1966.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stevenson

3. ““The purpose of instructions is to advise the jury of the legal principles applicable to the case, which principles must be applied to the facts proved to render a valid verdict. Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh, 90 Ariz. 157 , 367 P.2d 208 , reversed on other grounds 91 Ariz. 371 , 372 P.2d 708 ; Valley Nat. Bank v. Witter, 58 Ariz. 491 , 121 P.2d 414 ; 88 C.J.S. Trial § 66. * * * ” State v. Maloney, 101 Ariz. 111, 114 , 416 P.2d 544, 547 (1966).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 Ariz. App. 131 - State v. Reynolds