30 Utah 2d 367 - State v. Hodges’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably State v. Menzies (1994), State v. Malmrose (1982)
42 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 Harrington v. California · 24 Utah 2d 202 - State v. Scandrett · 23 Utah 2d 231 - State v. Kelbach · 12 Utah 2d 8 - State v. Dickson · 14 Utah 2d 266 - State v. Kazda
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The critical inquiry should be whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the incident so prejudiced the jury that in its absence there might have been a different result. Due to his advantaged position and consistent with his responsibilities as the authority in charge of the trial, the inquiry is necessarily addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. He should view such an episode in the light of the total proceeding, and if he thinks that there has been such prejudice that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant cannot have a fair and impartial determination of his guilt or innocence, he should of course grant a mistrial. But inasmuch as this is his primary responsibility, when he has given due consideration and ruled upon the matter, this court on review should not upset his ruling unless it clearly appears that he has abused his discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thompson · State v. Curtis“[T]here should be no reversal of a conviction merely because of error or irregularity, but only if it is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that in its absence there is a reasonable likelihood that there would have been a different result.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wiswell · State v. Curtis“In the absence of the appearance of something persuasive to the contrary, we assume that the jurors were conscientious in performing ... their duty, and that they followed the instructions of the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gardunio · State v. Curtis
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.