State v. Hughes’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Clark v. Arizona (2006), State v. Fauci (2007)
113 state decisions
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 Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · State v. Bible · State v. Atwood · State v. Gendron · Pool v. Superior Court
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor's misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]ven if there [is] no error or an error [is] harmless and so by itself does not warrant reversal, an incident may nonetheless contribute to a finding of persistent and pervasive misconduct if the cumulative effect of the incidents shows that the prosecutor intentionally engaged in improper conduct and “did so with indifference, if not a specific intent, to prejudice the defendant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Trani · State v. Morris“At the outset, we need to clarify Arizona’s position regarding the cumulative error doctrine in criminal cases. Our general rule has been stated several times over the years, and was recently stated in State v. Dickens, 187 Ariz. 1, 21 , 926 P.2d 468, 488 (1996), as follows: “[T]his court does not recognize the so-called cumulative error doctrine.” See also State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 497 , 910 P.2d 635, 648 (1996); State v. White, 168 Ariz. 500, 508 , 815 P.2d 869, 877 (1991). This lack of recognition is based on the theory that “something that is not prejudicial error in and of itself does not become such error when coupled with something else that is not prejudicial error.” Roscoe, 184 Ariz. at 497 , 910 P.2d at 648 .... We reiterate the general rule that several non-errors and harmless errors cannot add up to one reversible error. We also clarify the fact that this general rule does not apply when the court is evaluating a claim that prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial.”
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.