State v. Sorrell’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably State v. King (1988), State v. Henley (1984)
2 district · 52 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 · Rhode Island v. Innis · Doyle v. Ohio · Harrington v. California · Anderson v. Charles
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen error is not objected to at trial, the right to raise the matter on appeal is waived absent a finding of fundamental error. State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432 , 636 P.2d 1214 (1981). * * * [Reversal is required where the fundamental error harms the defendant. State v. Anderson, 110 Ariz. 238 , 517 P.2d 508 (1973). *.***** [Fundamental error need not be reversible when 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. State v. Thomas, supra; State v. Anderson, supra. This is the harmless error doctrine approved by the United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) and Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). The harmless error doctrine is an ap: pellate court doctrine to be applied when fundamental error has been committed in the trial court, and the error, though fundamental, is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We believe that a further comment is necessary. Nine years ago, in a case also involving post-arrest silence, this court warned prosecutors very clearly about ‘approaching the precipice of fundamental error’ while relying on the harmless error doctrine. State v. Anderson, supra, 110 Ariz. [238] at 241, 517 P.2d [508] at 511. Four years ago, in another case involving failure to speak when arrested, we said, finding no reversible error: ‘In the future, the state should scrupulously avoid any indication that the accused kept silent after arrest.’ State v. Bowie, supra, 119 Ariz. [336] at 341, 580 P.2d [1190] at 1195 (Emphasis added) In this case, the State has approached the precipice of reversible error once too often.” 132 Ariz. at 330, 645 P.2d 1242 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Keeley · State v. Salcido
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.