State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably State v. Raudebaugh (1993), State v. Blake (1999)
48 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. Bingham · State v. Randles · State v. Carter · State v. Boothe · State v. Roach
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the failure to object to an instruction at trial in a criminal case does not constitute a waiver of any objection to the instruction on appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the request. At the same time copies of such requested instructions shall be furnished to adverse parties. The court shall inform counsel of its proposed actions upon the requested instructions and shall allow counsel a reasonable time within which to examine and make objections outside the presence of the jury to such instructions or the failure to give requested instructions. Such instructions shall state distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objections, which objections shall be made a part of the record. No party may assign as error any portion of the eha[r]ge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto prior to the time that the jury is cha[r]ged. The court shall instruct the jury prior to final argument.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McLeskey“The law of evidence is structured by rules, forged by centuries of experience and continually tested against evolving notions of fairness and truth-seeking. Our Supreme Court recently has adopted a detailed and painstakingly drafted formulation of such rules. See Idaho Rules of Evidence (effective July 1, 1985). These rules are not mere precatory guides to discretion; they are standards controlling the outcome of evidentiary questions. A trial judge possesses no “discretionary” authority to alter or to disregard specific standards-partieularly in criminal trials, where these standards impart real meaning to an accused’s right to a fair trial. Discretion is properly exercised only when a rule of evidence calls for it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Watkins
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.