Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 443 P2D 122 - Fritts v. State

Fritts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
December 1979
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Lung v. State

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

  1. ““This Court is of the opinion that the defendant was not subjected to questioning within the contemplation of Miranda or Escobedo, supra. We do not think that the evils with which the United States Supreme Court was concerned in Miranda were present. “The defendant was not held incommunicado in an isolated setting in the privacy of an interrogation room in a police station. He was not swept from familiar surroundings into police custody, surrounded by antagonistic forces and subjected to the techniques of persuasion.” “At the time of the statement, defendant was standing on a public street on a Sunday afternoon, beside the car in which he had been driving, in the presence of one police officer who had stopped him for a traffic violation * * ⅜ ⅜ * * “This Court is of the opinion that the question asked by the police officer did not amount to the ‘custodial interrogation’ as contemplated by Miranda, and feel that neither the Miranda or Escobe-do cases, supra, are factually similar to the instant case, and, therefore, would not compel the state to demonstrate the use of the procedural safeguards therein enunciated, even though the officer went further than required, and did so advise defendant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Q. Did you hear this man speak? “A. We conversed at the scene while we were waiting on the wrecker. “Q. Describe his speech to the jury, if you will. “A. His speech was very slurred and at times he would ramble and say things that weren’t pertinent to what was going on. However, I did ask him if he had anything to drink and he stated, ‘yes, he had been drinking all night before and all that day’ . . . ””
    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.