2 Ariz. App. 71 - State v. Cobb’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 1995 · most notably State v. Johnson (1976), State v. Hurley (1987)
34 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 State v. Little · State v. Pulliam · State v. Owen · The People v. Casey · State v. Hunt
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trial judge’s statement that it was for the jury to determine the question of voluntariness of a statement or confession, does not correctly state the law as enunciated in Jackson. We hold, in accord with Jackson, that in Arizona when a question is raised as to voluntariness of a statement constituting either admis sions against interest, exculpatory or otherwise, or a confession, it must be resolved by the judge outside the presence of the jury. If he determines it was involuntary, it will not be admitted. If he determines it was voluntary, it may be admitted. Evidence tending to contradict the voluntary nature of the statement or confession may be admitted, and the jury may, as under the Massachusetts rule, then in effect disagree with the judge, and reject the confession.” State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274, 276, 277 , 394 P.2d 206, 208 (1964).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ '* * * In the trial of a criminal case, the record of a prior conviction of an infamous crime may be introduced for impeachment purposes. In such case proof of such conviction need not be made beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption arising from the identity of names will be sufficient. * * * ’ ” People v. Casey, 399 Ill. 374 , 77 N.E.2d 812 , 11 A.L.R.2d 865 (1948).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coury““ * * * In a criminal prosecution wherein the defendant is accused of a prior conviction, two questions of fact are presented. The first is whether the prior judgment has been rendered. The second is whether the person named in the prior judgment is the same person now accused of that prior conviction. * * * ” State v. Cobb, 2 Ariz.App. 71 , 406 P.2d 421, 425 (1965).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chavez v. State
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.