Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 Ariz. 99 - State v. Koch

State v. Koch’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
3
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

2 district · 65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably State v. Bible (1993), State v. Mott (1997)

2 district · 65 state decisions

2501983199020002010decided

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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · Lubin v. Allison · Adams v. Texas · Kelsaw v. Oregon

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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In a criminal trial in Arizona, the exclusive function of the jury is to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The trial court determines matters of punishment. ‘A defendant is entitled to a fair trial and to a verdict of a jury upon the evidence without consideration of the punishment inflicted.’ State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz. 208, 212 , 295 P.2d 377, 379 (1956). See State v. Van Dyke, 127 Ariz. 335 , 621 P.2d 22 (1980). Consequently, a trial court’s jury instructions generally should not touch on the subject of punishment except to advise the jury not to consider it.” 2”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he trial judge is always in the best position to determine whether a particular incident calls for a mistrial. The trial judge is able to sense the atmosphere of the trial, the manner in which the objectionable statement was made, and the possible effect it had on the jury and the trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.