2 Ariz. App. 443 - State v. Willits’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We now approach the basic issue constituting this appeal, i. e., whether defendant was prejudiced by the admission of Mrs. Willits’ testimony and the conduct of the county attorney. Article 6, section 27 of the Arizona State Constitution, A.R.S., provides: ‘No cause shall be reversed for technical error in pleading or proceedings when upon the whole case it shall appear that substantial justice has been done.’ ****** “It can readily be concluded by this court, attempting to put itself, as nearly possible, in the position of the jury, that the verdict would not have been different had the evidence not been admitted.” State v. Willits, 2 Ariz.App. 443, 445, 446 , 409 P.2d 727, 729, 730 (1966).”

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

2. ““In Arizona, neither suicide nor a threat to commit suicide is a crime rendering evidence thereof inadmissible under the rule of State v. Harris, supra. In addition, evidence of the prior threat by defendant to commit suicide could only have been admitted if sufficiently related to the act for which defendant was charged so as to complete the story of the crime. The exception to the general rule known as ‘completing the story of the crime’ has often been labeled ‘res gestae.’ * * * ” State v. Willits, 2 Ariz.App. 443, 444, 445 , 409 P.2d 727, 728, 729 (1966).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 10 Ariz. App. 545 - State v. Albe

3. ““ * * * in the prosecution of a particular offense evidence of another crime entirely distinct and independent of that for which he is being tried is neither relevant nor admissible unless proof of one tends to establish the other.” (Emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 6 Ariz. App. 267 - State v. Womack