State v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2012
12 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 Ingraham v. Wright · Brasfield v. United States · State v. Aragon · Lowe v. People · State v. Arnold
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant contends that it was unlawful for the trial court to impose consecutive sentences. He argues that AR.S. § 13-116 precluded the trial court from imposing consecutive sentences where the use of the gun was relied upon pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 to enhance the sentences. He asserts that AR.S. § 13-604 establishes the use of a gun as an additional element, act, or omission in the commission of a crime. Appellant asserts therefore that his dangerous act, the use of the gun, precludes consecutive sentences. AR.S. § 13-116 prohibits multiple punishment for a single act, and applies only where the same act violates more than one statute. State v. Arnold, 115 Ariz. 421 , 565 P.2d 1282 (1977). A criminal defendant convicted of two separate crimes involving different acts may be given consecutive sentences. AR.S. § 13-708. In the instant case, appellant was convicted of two separate crimes: kidnapping with use of a gun, and extortion with the use of a gun. The kidnapping was established by the evidence that appellant had held [the victim] at gunpoint with the intent to hold him for ransom or to aid in the commission of extortion. The extortion was established by appellant’s attempt while exhibiting a gun to obtain money from [the victim’s family members] by threatening to harm [the victim] if they did not obtain the money. Thus, the use of the gun in each crime enhanced the sentence imposed as to each crime, but it did not define a separate offense. Each of these crimes was e”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Greene“THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, my secretary has advised me that the foreman has indicated that it appears the jury is hopelessly deadlocked. Who is the foreman? THE FOREMAN: I am, sir. THE COURT: Sir, does it appear there is no reasonable probability that the jury can agree on a verdict? THE FOREMAN: I posed that question last night, this morning again, and again right after we came back from lunch. We have honestly talked back and forth, deliberated very conscientiously, and we cannot come to a unanimous decision. THE COURT: May I ask, and don’t disclose which side it is on, but what is the split, 11 to one, five to five or what? THE FOREMAN: 11 to one. It has been that way since yesterday evening. THE COURT: Why don’t you all give it a little while longer. There is a lot of evidence, so give it a while longer and see if you can’t reach a verdict. And if you just can’t reach a point where it appears there is no reasonable probability that you can, let us know again. Thank you.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Roberts
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.