State v. Marrapese’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Correia (1998), State v. Collazo (1982)
65 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 State v. Mancini · State v. Crescenzo · State v. Bowden · State v. Pailin · State v. Murphy
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Motions to pass a case and declare a mistrial are matters within the discretion of the trial justice. He or she has a ‘front-row seat’ at the trial and is therefore best able to gauge the effect of the improvident remarks heard by a jury: State v. Pailin, 114 R.I. 725, 729 , 339 A.2d 253, 255 (1975). When matters of a harmful nature are improperly brought before a jury, either intentionally or inadvertently, the trial justice, in response to a complaint being made, must assess the potential prejudicial impact of the challenged material. A decision must be made. If the prejudice is inexpiable, the motion to pass should be granted. If the prejudice can be cured, the instructions which follow must be timely and effective. State v. Sherman, 113 R.I. 77, 82 , 317 A.2d 445, 448 (1974). There is no fixed formula to determine whether the prejudicial taint has been removed. Each case must be decided on an ad hoc basis and each challenged remark must be viewed in the context in which it appeared and in light of the attendant circumstances. State v. Bowden, 113 R.I. 649, 654 , 324 A.2d 631, 635 (1974). A mistrial will be ordered at the appellate level only if we are convinced that the cautionary instructions were untimely or ineffective, or if the improper material had been so indelibly etched in the jurors’ minds that, despite his timely action, the trial justice did not disabuse the jurors’ minds of the prejudicial effect. State v. Sfameni, 115 R.I. 18, 22 , 339 A.2d 744 -45 (1975); ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hoyle“appellate counsel from attempting to launch a belated challenge to the sufficiency of the charge”
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.