State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
149 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably State v. Bible (1993), State v. Henderson (2005)
149 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 State v. Pulliam · State v. Mosley · State v. Anderson · State v. Smith · State v. Cobb
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Fundamental error has been variously defined by this court as ‘such error as goes to the foundation of the case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense,’ State v. Gamble, 111 Ariz. 25, 26 , 523 P.2d 53, 54 (1974) and as ‘error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is impossible for a defendant to have had a fair trial.’ State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 420 , 561 P.2d 739, 744 (1977). Before a finding of fundamental error can be made, it must be apparent that error was committed by the trial court in some aspect of the proceedings. If it is determined that error occurred, the prejudicial nature of the unobjectedto error must be evaluated in light of the entire record. State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216 , 349 P.2d 781 (1966), rev. on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977). If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and it can be said that the error did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute significantly to the verdict, reversal is not required. If, however, it appears that the error did contribute to or significantly affect the verdict, fundamental error was committed and reversal is mandated on due process grounds, i.e., “it cannot be said it is possible for á defendant to have had a fair trial.” State v. Smith, supra.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Fundamental error, of course, does not occur in the abstract. After determining that an error occurred at trial, "the prejudicial nature of the unobjected-to error must be evaluated in light of the entire record" before the error can be labeled as fundamental.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Art. 2 § 12: [Nor] shall any person be ... questioned touching religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony. Rule 610: Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson v. State · State v. Stone
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.