Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 Ariz. 578 - State v. Moorman

State v. Moorman’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Walton v. Arizona (1990), State v. Murray (1995)

3 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

29019871990200020102020decided

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 Brinegar v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Schmerber v. State of California · Rhode Island v. Innis · Hudson v. Palmer

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

  1. “While the parties were discussing jury instructions, the trial judge said he was inclined to give the jury an option of convicting Moorman of second degree murder or manslaughter instead of first degree murder. In response, Moor-man’s attorney said he and his client had discussed the matter and decided that they wanted the jury instructed only on first degree murder. Moorman was not present when this record was made. In his brief on appeal, Moorman claims that he does not recall any discussion of lesser-included offenses or any agreement with his lawyer on the issue. Moreover, Moormann contends that even if he objected to the giving of lesser-included instructions, the trial court had an obligation to give the instructions under Beck v. Alabama [ 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) ]. We need not review the record in depth to determine whether the evidence supported the lesser-included instructions. We see no reason why a murder defendant cannot knowingly waive his constitutional right to lesser-included instructions. Apparently, the decision not to request instructions on second degree murder or manslaughter was strategic. We have no evidentiary record on Moormann’s claims that his attorney never discussed the matter with him. We therefore do not decide that issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “duty to search the record for fundamental error”
    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.