Matheney v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Stevens v. State (1997), Matheney v. State (1997)
8 federal appellate · 27 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 American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Sloan v. Hicks · MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona · Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Lying in wait involves the elements of 'watching, waiting, and concealment from the person killed with the intent to kill or inflict bodily injury upon that person'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant ... argues that his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired by his mental disease. However, the defense psychiatrist offered a diseased-mind diagnosis which was rejected by the jury. The facts show that appellant is intelligent and manipulative. The manner in which appellant prepared for killing Bianco, the way in which he approached Bianco’s house, and then carried out the plan indicate that he was not extremely mentally and emotionally disturbed at the time of the murder. Further, appellant had expressed repeatedly an intention to kill Bianco and had tried to solicit others to do so. This evidence supports the trial court’s finding that this mitigating circumstance was not present.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matheney v. State“As a general rule, a prosecuting attorney cannot be called as a defense witness unless the testimony sought is required by compelling and legitimate need. The trial court in its discretion may deny the request if the prosecutor does not have information vital to the case. Where the evidence is easily available from other sources and absent "extraordinary circumstances" or "compelling reasons," an attorney who participates in a case should not be called as a witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ingle v. State
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.