2002 UT App 211 - State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When the prosecution introduces unexpected testimony, a defendant essentially waive[s] his right to later claim error if the defendant fails to request a continuance or seek other appropriate relief under Rule 16(g).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bragg · 2012 UT App 367 - State v. Mills

2. “Despite being informed of defendant's statements prior to trial and having reasonable knowledge that such statements might be used by the prosecution, defense counsel did not move for a continuance, to which he would have been entitled. Thus, under the facts of this case, we conclude that defendant waived relief under rule 16(g) ... by not making timely efforts to mitigate or eliminate the prejudice caused by the prosecutor's conduct.”

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

3. “The trial court's brief commentary dealt only with the "gravity and cireumstances of the offenses," and did not explicitly address the presentence report's recommendation of concurrent sentences. In short, there is nothing in this record to indicate that the trial court "considered the ... history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant in determining whether to impose consecutive sentences."”

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