State v. Hutton’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 1985 · most notably 58 Cal. 2d 748 - People v. McFarland (1962), 42 Ala. App. 357 - Wildman v. State (1963)
72 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 State v. Westbrook · 132 Cal. App. 2d 554 - People v. Guarino · 159 Cal. App. 2d 54 - People v. Goodman
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under either, but in no event under more than one. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Vaughn v. State · State v. Enriquez““ * * * Defendant says that this section protects him from double punishment because the burglary and theft were committed in one transaction. We cannot agree. The above statute covers a situation where the same act is punishable in different ways under different sections of the law. Under such a situation, he can be punished for only one offense. Burglary and theft are two separate and distinct acts. To constitute burglary it is not necessary that theft be committed. In this case, it was only necessary that the breaking and entering be made with the intent to commit grand theft. To consummate theft, it is essential that after the burglary is completed, the additional act of actually stealing be committed. We have had occasion to construe the aforementioned section of the statute and held in effect that for the section to operate to prevent double punishment, the two alleged crimes must have identical components. State v. Westbrook, 79 Ariz. 116 , 285 P.2d 161 , 53 A.L.R.2d 619 . The elements constituting burglary and theft are entirely different. One may be committed without the other.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Even though it appears the defendant has a former criminal record, we feel that the imposition of the maximum for both offenses to run consecutively is too severe, and we are justified in exercising the power given us under A.R.S. § 13-1717, subd. B. We have no objection to the imposition of the maximum for each offense, but feel in the interest of justice that the sentences should run concurrently." 87 Ariz. at 178-79 , 349 P.2d at 189 .”
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.