State v. Tuell’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably State v. Jeffers (1983), State v. Rodriguez (1980)
54 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 Roviaro v. United States · State v. Dessureault · McClain v. United States · State v. Little · State v. Vallejos
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to testify in his own behalf. The admission of the evidence of subsequent acts or crimes in Count II would have been so prejudicial as to completely destroy any possible probative value. The ruling of the trial court effectively precluded appellant from exercising his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf as to Count I for the reason he would be forced to exercise his right against self-incrimination as to Count II. We hold that the trial eourt erred in denying appellant’s motion in li-mine and the fact that subsequent acts were never offered in evidence does not render the question moot on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Skufca“The [defendant] need not prove that the informer would give testimony favorable to the defense in order to compel disclosure of his identity; nor need he prove that the informer was a participant in or even an eye witness to the crime. His burden extends only to a showing that, in view of the evidence, the informer would be a material witness on the issue of guilt which might result in exoneration and that nondisclosure of his identity would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Grounds“a. Matters Relating to Guilt, Innocence or Punishment. No later than 10 days after the arraignment in Superior Court, the prosecutor shall make available to the defendant for examination and reproduction the following material and information within his possession or control: (1) The names and addresses of all persons whom the prosecutor will call as witnesses in the case-in-chief together with their relevant written or recorded statements;” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. LaBarre
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.