State v. Diaz’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably 2010 UT App 396 - State v. King (2010), 2006 UT App 511 - State v. Alfatlawi (2006)
27 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 Strickland v. Washington · State v. Dunn · State v. Holgate · State v. Buggs · State v. Carter
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a defendant ... has been charged with committing both a violent crime, in which a detention is inherent, and the crime of kidnaping based solely on the detention necessary to the commission of the companion crime.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Ilf a taking or confinement is alleged to have been done to facilitate the commission of another crime, to be kidnaping the resulting movement or confinement: (a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime; (b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and (c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“an appellant must show 'first that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of the crime[s] charged and second that the insufficiency was so obvious and fundamental that the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury.' " State v. Diaz , 2002 UT App 288 , ¶ 32, 55 P.3d 1131 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Holgate , 2000 UT 74 , ¶ 17, 10 P.3d 346 ). ¶50 "We first examine the record to determine whether, 'after viewing the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime[s] for which he or she was convicted.' " Id. ¶ 33 (alteration in original) (quoting Holgate , 2000 UT 74 , ¶ 18, 10 P.3d 346 ). "Only then will we undertake an examination of the record to determine 'whether the evidentiary defect was so obvious and fundamental that it was plain error to submit the case to the jury.' " Id. (quoting Holgate , 2000 UT 74 , ¶ 18, 10 P.3d 346 ). ¶51 "A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent.”
2 later decisions 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.