State v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 88 state decisions

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

1. “A. No, it is not. Although personality traits may be established by expert opinion, we have held that the use of expert testimony to establish the trait of acting without reflection (e.g., panic reaction to stress) is limited. State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32 , 628 P.2d 580 (1981). In Christensen we ruled that “[a]n expert witness may not testify specifically as to whether a defendant was or was not acting reflectively at the time of a killing.” Id. at 35-36, 628 P.2d at 583-84 (emphasis added). Instead, an expert witness can only testify as to the general tendency of the defendant to act without reflection, allowing the jury to determine the defendant’s intent at the time of the alleged crime. See State v. Hallman, 137 Ariz. 31, 35 , 668 P.2d 874, 878 (1983); State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. at 35-36, 628 P.2d 583 -84;4[ 2 ] State v. Dickey, 125 Ariz. 163, 169 , 608 P.2d 302, 307-08 (1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Arnett

2. “The court further finds that the defendant was not so intoxicated that he was unable to understand the meaning of his comments. Although there is some rambling in reference to possibly other incidents in the statement made by the defendant over some period of time that’s reflected in the tape recording, the defendant was able to give accurate information concerning details, personal details. He was further able to communicate with the officer concerning matters that related to this offense and whether the defendant has a present memory or not for having made such statements, the court finds the statements taken in their context show that he understands what was being said to him and, therefore, the court does find the statements to have been voluntary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Woodall

3. “To satisfy Miranda, the State must show that defendant understood his rights and intelligently and knowingly relinquished those rights before any custodial interrogation began.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ortiz