101 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Burton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 37 Wash. App. 878 - State v. Bonefield · 52 Wash. App. 326 - State v. Bond

2. “suggests that prior convictions can be categorized as crimes of 'dishonesty or false statement' merely by looking at the name of the crime.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Pfeifer · 109 Wash. 2d 69 - State v. Newton

3. “[W]e return to basics. We begin with the principle that, while as the author of the rule we are in a position to interpret the meaning sought to be conveyed by the rule, we approach our rules as though they had been drafted by the Legislature and give the words their ordinary meaning. The term "dishonest" implies the act or practice of telling a lie, or of cheating, deceiving, and stealing. Crimes of theft involve stealing, and are clearly encompassed within the term dishonest. Moreover, we agree with former Chief Justice Burger's statement ... that "[i]n common human experience acts of deceit, fraud, cheating, or stealing, ... are universally regarded as conduct which reflects adversely on a man's honesty and integrity." ... The act of taking property is positively dishonest.... [t]he sole purpose of impeachment evidence is to enlighten the jury with respect to the defendant's credibility as a witness. This purpose is met by allowing admissibility of prior convictions evidencing dishonesty, regardless of the fact that the conduct had as its purpose the taking of another's property.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 116 Wash. 2d 531 - State v. Ray · 116 Wash. 2d 911 - State v. McKinsey