State v. Gaines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is a suggestion that we weigh the evidence for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. We decline the invitation. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that in reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, it is not the function of the reviewing court to weigh the evidence and decide whether it would reach the same conclusion as the trier of fact. State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 210 , 540 P.2d 682 (1975). Rather, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the State. State v. Moore, 111 Ariz. 496 , 533 P.2d 663 (1975). Only in circumstances where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a judgment, State v. Godsoe, 107 Ariz. 367 , 489 P.2d 4 (1971), or where a judgment is clearly contrary to any substantial evidence, United States v. Goodrich, 493 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1974), is it proper to reverse on the grounds of insufficient evidence.” 549 P.2d at 575-76 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Ariz. App. 538 - State v. Gallegos · State v. Stone

2. ““In cases in which the submission on the record is not equivalent to a guilty plea, the requirements of Boykin are not applicable, but the requirements of due process necessitate that there be a knowing waiver of the constitutional rights relinquished by such submission. It is necessary that the record show that the defendant was advised that he was giving up his right to trial by jury and that the whole issue of guilt or innocence would be decided on the submitted record. In reviewing the transcript we are satisfied that there is a sufficient showing to support the conclusion of the trial judge that there was a knowing waiver.” State v. Gaines, 113 Ariz. 206, 207 , 549 P.2d 574, 575 (1976).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Widmer · State v. Steelman

3. ““In State v. Crowley, 111 Ariz. 308 , 528 P.2d 834 (1974), we held that an agreement by the parties to submit the matter on the preliminary hearing transcript, when such an agreement is tantamount to a plea of guilty, requires compliance with the mandates of Boykin [v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).] We have also held that when the submission is not tantamount to a guilty plea the requirements of Boykin do not apply. * * *” 113 Ariz. 206, 207 , 549 P.2d 574, 575 (1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Woods