Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 Ariz. 112 - State v. Bay

State v. Bay’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably Clark v. Arizona (2006), 49 Ohio App. 3d 27 - State v. Reynolds (1988)

40 state decisions

1601986199020002010decided

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. Celaya · State v. McMurtrey · State v. Fletcher · State v. Steelman · State v. Coey

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

  1. “The general rule is that a lay witness, if competent, may testify to relevant evidence. See Rules 402, 601, 602, 701, Ariz.Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S. In Arizona lay testimony has long been admissible in criminal trials on the issue of sanity. See State v. Sanchez, 117 Ariz. 369, 373 , 573 P.2d 60, 64 (1977); State v. Coey, 82 Ariz. 133, 139 , 309 P.2d 260, 264 (1957); M. Udall & J. Livermore, supra § 21 at 26; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 609 at 175 (13th ed. 1973). Foundationally, a lay witness must have had an opportunity to observe the past conduct and history of a defendant, State v. Coey, 82 Ariz. at 139 , 309 P.2d at 264 ; the fact that he is a lay witness goes not to the admissibility of the testimony but rather to its weight. Id. If lay testimony is admitted, logically, a jury is free to accept it as a basis for its verdict. State v. Overton, 114 Ariz. 553 , 562 P.2d 726 (1977). This is so even if there is conflicting medical testimony on the issue. Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If acting recklessly suffices to establish an element [of an offense], that element is also established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Ordinarily, a ruling of a trial court excluding evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of an offer of proof....”
    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.