State v. Serna’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Schad v. Arizona (1991), State v. Evans (1960)
42 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 27 Cal. 2d 164 - People v. Bender · State v. Singleton · Burgunder v. State of Arizona · Lawrence v. State · State v. King
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * And, I ask you, is there anything in this case to show that there was not a purchase or there were not three purchases? There is nothing to show that. * * * ” ****** "You heard the testimony of all the witnesses that were presented by the State in this particular case. And, it has not been controverted, except by Counsel’s cross examination. That is the only controversy of any of the testimony of State’s witnesses. * * * ” ****** « * * * because there is no other evidence to anything of the conrary [sic] except guilt.” A.R.S. § 13-163 provides in part: “B. The defendant’s neglect or refusal to be a witness in his own behalf shall not in any manner prejudice him, or be used against him on the trial or proceedings.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Acosta““The main question for us to determine at this time is whether or not the instruction given on ‘premeditation’ and ‘deliberation’ could have in any way prejudiced this defendant. This was a case of murder in the commission of a robbery. The evidence showed that the camera, wallet and car in the defendant’s possession when he was captured were the property of deceased. Every element of the crime went to show that robbery was the purpose of the commission of this offense. Under the circumstances the jury did not need to consider the element of deliberation and premeditation in arriving at a verdict, as given, of murder of the first degree. * * * ” State v. Serna, 69 Ariz. 181, 187-88 , 211 P.2d 455,459 (1949).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Richmond“the legal equivalent of . . . deliberation, premeditation, and design”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schad v. Arizona
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.