2001 UT App 241 - State v. Wanosik’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “requires that a sentencing judge act on reasonably reliable and relevant information in exercising discretion in fixing a sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Christensen · State v. Vict. Asta

2. “The prosecution, which must bear the burden of proof regarding waiver, would be well served to assist the court in its inquiry by providing at least some minimal evidence that the defendant is not incarcerated.... In the average case, the trial court may simply instruct defense counsel to attempt to contact the defendant or persons familiar with the defendant to see if an explanation for the non-appearance emerges, and the prosecutor to ascertain if the defendant is incarcerated. Should those inquiries disclose no evidence of involuntary absence, we agree with the court of appeals that “[o]nee inquiry appropriate to the case has been made, and a compelling reason for the defendant’s absence remains unknown, voluntariness ... may then be properly inferred.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Pando

3. “The trial court in its discretion may complete the trial, and the defendant shall be considered to have waived his right to be present, whenever a defendant, initially present: (1) [vloluntarily absents himself after the trial has commenced, whether or not he has been informed by the court of his obligation to remain during the trial....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Stephenson