State v. Mata’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 184 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Bible (1993), State v. Gretzler (1983)
175 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 Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Gregg v. Georgia · Griffin v. California
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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“7. We note that none of the instant communications occurred after the jury retired to deliberate. This aspect of the general rule is derived from 17 A.R.S., Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 22.3, which provides: “After the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they desire to have any testimony repeated, or if they or any party request additional instructions, the court may recall them to the courtroom and order the testimony read or give appropriate additional instructions. The court may also order other testimony read or give other instructions, so as not to give undue prominence to the particular testimony or instructions requested. Such testimony may be read or instructions given only after notice to the parties.” We see no reason to be less concerned with a potential violation of defendant’s rights if a communication occurs before the jury retires to deliberate. 8. Both Burnetts and Werring involved the actual physical intrusion by the judge into the jury-room, where he communicated orally with the panel on issues of fact and law. In Robin , the judge responded to questions of fact from the jury by answering from his notes and his recollection of testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Where it may be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no prejudice to the defendant, a communication between judge and jury outside the presence of defendant and counsel is harmless error.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the trial court was correct in finding the presence of two aggravating circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mata v. Ricketts · Mata v. Ricketts
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.