11 Md. App. 423 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Maryland is clearly in line with this majority position that the office of ‘an opening statement in a criminal prosecution is to apprise, with reasonable succinctness, the trier of facts with the questions involved and what the State or defense expects to prove, so as to prepare said trier of the facts for the evidence to be adduced. * * * and it generally has no binding force or effect.’ Clarke v. State, 238 Md. 11, 19-20 , 207 A. 2d 456, 460-461 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tyler v. State · 16 Md. App. 685 - Powell v. State

2. ““Aside from some dicta in the State of Ohio (a state, unlike Maryland, wherein an opening statement by the prosecutor is mandatory), these federal cases supply the only predicate to support the statement in 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1145(3) (f) that “The trial court has the power to direct a verdict on the opening statement of prosecuting counsel, but should exercise it only when it appears that the charge against accused cannot be sustained under any view of the evidence consistent with it, and only when the prosecutor has been given opportunity to correct the statement.” See State v. Morris, 100 Ohio App. 307 , 136 N.E.1d 653, and State v. Karcher, 155 Ohio St. 253 , 98 N.E.2d 308 , for the Ohio dicta. “In arguing the necessity for such a post-statement, pre-evidentiary remedy, the appellants rely upon the recitation in 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1085, p. 98, to the effect that opening statements have the purpose of ‘informing an accused of the contemplated course of the prosecution and of the facts relied on by the prosecution, so as fairly to enable him to meet the charge against him.’ A fuller reading of the article reveals that this is a very distinct minority position, relying almost exclusively on State v. Deppe, 286 S.W.2d 776 (Missouri), as its authority. The strong majority position is that, ‘The office or purpose of an opening statement is to advise the jury concerning the questions of fact involved, so as to prepare their minds for the evidence to be heard.’ ” ( 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 164 Ind. App. 97 - Chatman v. State

3. “We find no merit in the contention of the defendant that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant upon the opening statement of the prosecutor. Opening statements are merely to advise the jury as to what it may expect by way of evidence and questions which will be presented to it. It is not evidence and is merely for the assistance of the jury. In rare instances the opening statement of a party may show affirmatively that it has no right to recover, or in a criminal case that the prosecution cannot make a case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Stamberger