Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 Ariz. 536 - State v. Mott

State v. Mott’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 112 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Clark v. Arizona (2006), State v. Roque (2006)

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 112 state decisions

6201997200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17

Relies on Patterson v. New York · Huddleston v. United States · Speiser v. Randall · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Stafford v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “Because the legislature has not provided for a diminished capacity defense, we have since consistently refused to allow psychiatric testimony to negate specific intent.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Arizona does not allow evidence of a defendant's mental disorder short of insanity either as an affirmative defense or to negate the mens rea element of a crime.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If we accept defendant's proposal and decide that psychiatric evidence of a mental disease or defect is relevant to prove that a defendant did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense, the jury would be put to the compulsion of releasing upon society many dangerous criminals who obviously should be placed under confinement.”
    2 later decisions 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.