State v. Bateman’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Powell v. State (1998), In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 (1990)
2 district · 80 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Roe v. Wade · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Eisenstadt v. Baird · Stanley v. Georgia
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A.R.S. § 13-136 provides that a conviction will not be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence connecting the defendant with the commission of the offense. An accomplice is one who could be indicted or informed against for the same crime of which the defendant is accused. State v. Thomas, 79 Ariz. 355 , 290 P.2d 470 (1955). Both persons who consensually participate in criminal sexual activity are accomplices and can be charged as principals. State v. McDaniel, 80 Ariz. 381 , 298 P.2d 798 (1956). The failure of the trial courts to instruct the juries on this issue was reversible error even in the absence of requests for such instructions. State v. Betts, 71 Ariz. 362 , 227 P.2d 749 (1951). These were not cases where the evidence was so undisputed that the complaining" witnesses were not accomplices that the errors can be ignored. If the complaining witness should be found by the jury to have in fact consented to the acts alleged, the witness’ testimony must otherwise be corroborated to convict the defendant.” 113 Ariz. at 111, 547 P.2d at 10 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reinhold““[Sjexual activity between two consenting adults in private is not a matter of concern for the State except insofar as the legislature has acted to properly regulate the moral welfare of its people, and has specifically prohibited sodomy and other specified lewd and lascivious acts.” Id., at 111 , 547 P. 2d, at 10 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bateman v. Arizona“exists within the context of the intimate sexual relations between consenting adults in private.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.