State v. Heather’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably State v. Johnson (1976), State v. Rutledge (1975)
35 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 · Gilbert v. California · State v. Raspberry · Gladden v. Unsworth · State v. Camper
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] mistrial should be granted only when the incident is so grievous that the prejudicial effect can be removed no other way. For this reason the declaration of a mistrial necessarily and properly rests largely in the discretion of the trial court who has observed the incident giving rise to the request for a mistrial, and who is in a better position than an appellate court to evaluate the prejudicial effect and possibility of its removal by action short of a mistrial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Granberry · State v. Jones“The general principle upon which courts are agreed is that intoxication at the time of making a statement or confession does not, at least where the intoxication, in the words of some cases, does not amount to mania, require that the statement be excluded because it is involuntary or not made knowingly and intelligently. Rather, the fact of intoxication goes to the weight and credibility to be accorded the statement. State v. Heather, 498 S.W.2d 300, 304 (Mo.App.1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gullett““ ‘The fact that accused was more or less intoxicated when he confessed does not exclude the confession if he had sufficient mental capacity to know what he was saying.’ ” at 941.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Curry
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.