State v. Arnett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. The Defendant has been convicted of other offenses in the State of Arizona for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable. FINDING: The Court finds that this circumstance does exist. (a) The Defendant has been convicted of the following felonies in this Court for which life imprisonment was imposable: (1) CR 77216, Rape, a Felony, (2) CR 77394, Rape, a Felony, (3) CR 92168, Rape, First Degree, a Felony. The Court has personally reviewed the files in these causes and has considered Exhibit 1 (July 29, 1977) in Evidence. (b) In addition, the Defendant has been convicted of Murder, First Degree of Sandy Spencer as set forth in Count I of the Indictment in this cause, for which a sentence of life imprisonment or death is imposable. 2. The Defendant was previously convicted of felonies in the State of Arizona involving the use of violence on another person. FINDING: The Court finds this circumstance does exist. The finding under Paragraph 1(a) herein is incorporated as though fully set forth. * * * * * * 6. The Defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner. FINDING: The Court does find this circumstance to exist. The victim Neva Lee was a 14 year old girl. The Defendant murdered her by forcing dirt into her mouth, larynx, the voice box, the trachea, the windpipe and the periphery of the bronchiolo of both lungs. She died of suffocation or asphyxiation due to obstruction of the airway by soil. Miss Lee also sustained a sta”

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

2. “We do not believe, however, that this is the better practice. When defendant is to be resentenced, and particularly when the death sentence is possible, it would seem that the evidence and testimony should be as fresh as possible. Relying on a hearing conducted months before the imposition of the death penalty is not recommended.”

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

3. ““1. The defendant has been convicted of another offense in the United States for which under Arizona law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable. “2. The defendant was previously convicted of a felony in the United States involving the use or threat of violence on another person.””

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