State v. Finley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 state decisions

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

1. “‘Whenever evidence is admitted of other offenses there is an imperative duty on the trial court to clearly instruct the jury as to the restricted and limited purpose for which such evidence is to be considered. * * * ’”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Canedo · State v. Taylor

2. ““The general rule is that proof of the commission of another crime cannot ordinarily be put in evidence as proof of the commission of the crime charged, Vigil v. State, 33 Ariz. 51 , 262 P. 14 ; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 688; but one of the well-recognized exceptions to this general rule is where the evidence of the commission of a similar offense tends to show a system, plan or scheme embracing two or more crimes so related to each other that the proof of one tends to establish the other, then such evidence becomes relevant and admissible. “There can be no dispute as to the general rule and its exceptions—the real difficulty comes in applying them to the facts of a particular case. In the reported decisions it must be conceded there is a conflict as to just what facts come within the realm of constituting a scheme, plan or design. * * * ****** “In several cases involving various types of sex crimes we have sustained the admission of evidence of other offenses as coming within this exception. See Taylor v. State, 55 Ariz. 13 , 97 P.2d 543 ; State v. Martinez, 67 Ariz. 389 , 198 P.2d 115 ; State v. McDaniel, 80 Ariz. 381 , 298 P.2d 798 . “Do the facts in the instant case, i.e., the prior rape of another female, bring into play the exception to the rule? For the reasons herein stated we believe that it does. Admittedly the precise problem here presented has not heretofore been passed upon by this court. “We believe the two occurrences were characterized by the manifestation of t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Goldsmith

3. ““It is clear from our previous pronouncements that: (1) it is impossible to formulate a definition of res gestae which will serve for all cases; (2) no rule may be formulated as to the limit of time within which the exciting cause should be held to have been dissipated so as to render such statement inadmissible; (3) a want of suitable opportunity, or fear, may sometimes excuse or justify a delay in making the disclosure; and (4), each case mifst depend upon its own facts and much must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Emphasis ours)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 Ariz. App. 6 - State v. Hunt