Urrutia v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Fulminante (1999), Dysthe v. State (2003)
34 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 Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Cos. · Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Cos. · United States v. Dolan · Saldana v. State · United States v. Davis
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ejvidence of a witness' guilt for an offense which arose out of a cireumstance leading to the defendant's trial implies that the defendant is also guilty. Such an implication violates a defendant's right to have a trial on its own merits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Adams v. State · Black v. State“(1) the physical appearance of the substance involved in the transaction; (2) evidence that the substance produced the expected effects when sampled by someone familiar with the illicit drug; (3) evidence that the substance was used in the same manner as the illicit drug; (4) testimony that a high price was paid in cash for the substance; (5) evidence that transactions involving the substance were carried on with secrecy or deviousness; and (6) evidence that the substance was called by the name of the illegal narcotic by the defendant or others in his presence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This Court assesses whether all the evidence which was presented is adequate enough to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury when we are applying this rule; our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did.””
2 later decisions 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.