State v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably State v. Nash (1985), Trimble v. State (1984)
47 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Faretta v. California · Jackson v. Denno · Lego v. Twomey · 51 Cal. 2d 777 - People v. Mattson
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (8) Public records and reports. Unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness, records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth ... (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel.... A minute order of judgment or order of the superior court is a matter observed and recorded pursuant to duty imposed by law. A.R.S. § 11-553 provides that the clerk of the superior court shall “keep books of record required by law or rule of court.” 17 A.R.S., Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26.16, provides that, upon pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the clerk of the superior court “shall forthwith enter the exact terms of the judgment and sentence in the court’s minutes.” Verity is imported to a clerk’s minutes. State v. Biscoe, 112 Ariz. 98 , 537 P.2d 968 (1975). [Therefore,] ... the certified copg of the Mag 21 minute entrg [of the previous judgment of conviction] was properlg admissible [.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Samonte“Rule 803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: [[Image here]] (b) Other exceptions: [[Image here]] (8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, ex- eluding, however, in criminal eases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel or (C) in civil proceedings and against the government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Samonte“Appellant ... argues that the prior felony conviction should not have been found true because it was proven by inadmissible hearsay evidence. He contends that the certified copy of the May 21, 1976, minute order which was used to prove the prior conviction was inadmissible hearsay because the conviction was entered after a no contest plea, and thus, did not fall within Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(22). We reject appellant’s argument. Rule 803(22) expressly provides a hearsay exception for the use of former judg- mente “to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment.” The State did not offer the former judgment to prove facts supporting the judgment. Rather, the certified copg of the minute entrg was offered to prove the fact of the prior conviction. Thus, Rule 803(22) is not applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Samonte
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.