People v. Amaya’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2007
16 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 90 Cal. App. 657 - People v. Dukes · 34 Cal. App. 754 - Beecham v. Burns · People v. Lee Fat
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Deputy Sheriff Morrell, who spoke Spanish as well as English, questioned appellant, after his arrest, partly in English and partly in Spanish. The questions and answers as interpreted by Deputy Sheriff Morrell were reduced to writing by a stenographic reporter. Thereafter at the time of the trial Mr. Morrell used, for the purpose of refreshing his recollection as to his conversation with appellant, the transcribed notes of the reporter. This procedure was proper. Mr.' Morrell stated when questioned by the district attorney that it was necessary for him to use the memorandum for the purpose of refreshing his recollection. This was sufficient foundation, together with the showing as to the method of preparation of the notes to permit Mr. Morrell to use the memorandum in testifying as to the statements made by appellant in his presence. The law is established that one who is present at a conversation and has heard the same and knows the facts may use any writing whether made by himself or another to refresh his memory when subsequently testifying (Code Civ. Proc., § 2047; Beecham v. Burns, 34 Cal.App. 754, 758 [ 168 P. 1058 ]; People v. Lee Fat, 54 Cal. 527, 531 ; see, also, 27 Cal.Jur. (1926) 88, §§ 68 and 69; vol. 7, No. 5, February, 1941, p. 315, Current Legal Thought).” (Also see Estate of Moore, 180 Cal. 570, 584 [ 182 P. 285 ]; People v. Vera, 131 Cal.App.2d 669, 674-676 [ 281 P.2d 65 ]; People v. Eads, 124 Cal.App.2d 393, 400 [ 268 P.2d 561 ] ; People v. Sica, 112 Cal.Ap”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Gardner“In an attempt to prove the falsity of such statement the People produced two witnesses, ... a stepson ... and ... a stepdaughter [ of defendant ] who testified that on the occasion mentioned when [ defendant ] came home neither [ the ] deceased nor any other man was in bed with their mother. Such testimony was properly received in evidence, it being the established law of this state that evidence may be introduced to show that a defendant has made false statements for the purpose of misleading or warding off suspicion and that such false statements, though not conclusive of guilt, may strengthen inferences of guilt arising from other facts. [Citation.]”
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.