State v. Corbett’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably State v. Goode (1995), State v. Murillo (1998)
43 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · FMC Corp. v. Holliday · State v. Coffey · State v. Hennis
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]uring deliberations, the jury indicated it had a question and was returned to the courtroom. The following occurred: [‘]JURY FOREMAN: We, the jury, would like to know if we could look over some of the evidence so we can clarify our decision. THE COURT: What evidence is it you want to see? JURY FOREMAN: It’s several things, it’s not all been in one particular thing. THE COURT: I can’t help you until you tell me what it is. JURY FOREMAN: It’s not necessarily the pictures. I guess one at a time we can say. Each person is disagreeing on some things. Can we see a transcript? THE COURT: I see what you’re saying. All right, have a seat. It is the request for a transcript of the testimony of the witnesses I would deny that to you. The reason being is unless we had a transcript of the witnesses for you to read, it wouldn’t be fair to, say, take part of the state’s witnesses and part of the defense witnesses and not give it all to you, and all of you, all 12 of you together, have heard all of the evidence in this case. As I stated to you, your job is to weed through this evidence, assign weight to it and also to determine from your joint and collective recollections of the evidence, determine what the facts are. You deliberate with a view to reaching a verdict if it can be done without the surrender of an honest conviction, and that’s what we’re asking you to do, as best you can, to remember all the evidence and from that evidence determine what the facts are and render a verdict ba”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“where a defendant’s sole defense is one of alibi, he is not entitled to have the jury consider a lesser offense on the theory that jurors may take bits and pieces of the State’s evidence and bits and pieces of defendant’s evidence and thus find him guilty of a lesser offense not positively supported by the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the record clearly shows the. trial court reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the jury’s request. With all of the jurors in the courtroom, the court stated: [‘]I am sorry but I am not going to grant your request. The jury has the responsibility of recalling all the evidence. To begin rehearing parts of the evidence by means of providing you with a written transcript would tend to emphasize certain portions of the evidence without giving equal publication to the other evidence in the case. For that reason, it would be best not to let portions of the evidence be repeated without having it all repeated because all of the evidence is important.]’] The trial court was clearly concerned that by allowing the jury to review the testimony of only one of the many witnesses heard at the trial the jury might overemphasize the testimony of Deputy Watson and not properly consider the totality of the evidence before them. . . . The trial court property [sic] exercised its discretion in denying the jury’s request to review Deputy Watson’s testimony and the denial was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”
1 later decision 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.