Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 Idaho 163 - State v. Griffiths

State v. Griffiths’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
6
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably People v. Humphrey (1996), State v. Raudebaugh (1993)

53 state decisions

36019801990200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Gerstein v. Pugh · Fahy v. Connecticut · Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia · People v. Wells

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

  1. “"* * * Our review of the record discloses misconduct by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument. * * * The literal language of the prosecuting attorney need not be set forth herein, it is enough to say that his closing argument referred to facts which were not in evidence and urged conclusions on the part of the jury which would have been relevant to a charge of first degree murder. He portrayed the defendant as having deliberately planned and carried out the murder of her husband in a cold and calculated manner, continuing to fire shots into the body of her husband while he was in a helpless position and pleading for mercy. "While such statements might constitute prosecutorial license, if based on some peripheral view of the facts in a first degree murder case, the statements were improper in the case at bar were unsustained by the record. * * * "Even if we assume, however, that the misconduct of the prosecutor in the case at bar is egregious, unprofessional and reprehensible, it alone is not sufficient to warrant reversal. [Citations.] * * *" State v. Griffiths, 101 Idaho 163 , 610 P.2d 522 (1980).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is the duty of the prosecutor to see that a defendant has a fair trial, and he should never seek by innunendo or inference to pervert the testimony, or make statements to the jury which, whether true or not, have not been proved. The desire for success should never induce him to obtain a verdict by argument based upon anything except the evidence in the case and the conclusions legitimately deducible from the law applicable to the same.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[t]he admissibility of expert testimony is discretionary with the trial court ..., and [that] absent an abuse of discretion, a decision will not be disturbed on appeal.”
    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.