State v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 27 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * which incapacitates him from forming or entertaining a malicious intent or that ‘malice aforethought’ which is an essential element of murder in the second degree. Such voluntary intoxication or drunkenness is to be taken into consideration in determining the existence or non-existence of malice aforethought, which distinguishes murder from manslaughter.” State v. Hudson, 85 Ariz. 77 at 80 , 331 P.2d 1092 at 1095 (1958). See also: State v. Saun ders, 102 Ariz. 565 , 435 P.2d 39 (1967); A.R.S. § 13-132.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Contreras · State v. Kabinto

2. ““In the case of certain crimes it is necessary that a criminal act be accompanied by a specific or particular intent without which the crime is not committed; thus, in the crime of obstructing justice, a necessary fact [to] be proved is the existence in the mind of the defendant of a specific intent to, by means of any threat or violence, deter or prevent a public officer from performing any duty imposed upon the officer by law or to resist, delay or obstruct an officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his office or knowingly resist by the use of force or violence the officer in the performance of his duty. Unless such intent as I have just outlined so exists, then that crime is not committed. No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition, but when the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute any particular crime or degree of crime, you may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Ariz. App. 65 - State v. Fimbres

3. ““Officer Scully’s action in placing his hand on the defendant’s arm and leading him outside to the patrol car, under these circumstances was such an infringement of the defendant’s ‘freedom of action’ that it required that the officer fully advise the defendant of his constitutional rights under Miranda before any questions could be asked. Consequently, the trial court’s failure to exclude the defendant’s inculpatory statement was prejudicial error.””

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