State v. LaGrand’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 127 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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We do not believe the defendant must intend beforehand to kill as well as to rob to satisfy the statute. A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(5). Nor do we believe that an absence of actual receipt of money or valuables negates a finding of expectation of pecuniary gain as an aggravating circumstance. In this case, the attempted robbery permeated the entire conduct of the defendant. The defendant may have reacted irrationally to the failure or inability of the victim to open the safe but the murder was neither accidental nor unexpected. The reason defendant was there was his expectation of pecuniary gain and the reason he stabbed the victim was because the victim was unable to open the safe, frustrating defendant’s continuing attempt for pecuniary gain. The defendant’s goal of pecuniary gain caused the murder and the murder was in furtherance of his goal. We agree with the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s expectation of pecuniary gain was an aggravating factor.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LaGrand v. Stewart · State v. Williams

2. “Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declar-ant Unavailable (b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (b)(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability ... that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LaGrand v. Stewart · State v. Lopez

3. “We therefore hold that a judge’s inquiry, made to assure himself that the corroboration requirement of Rule 804(b)(3) has been satisfied, should be limited to asking whether evidence in the record corroborating and contradicting the declarant’s statement would permit a reasonable person to believe that the statement could be true. If a judge believes that a reasonable person could [so] conclude ..'. then the judge must admit the statement into evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LaGrand v. Stewart · State v. Doody