State v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Stills (1998), Jackson v. State (2012)
34 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · California v. Trombetta · Arizona v. Youngblood · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he State generally has no duty to collect particular evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thromman · State v. Ervin“If the trial court determines that the failure to collect the evidence was done in bad faith, in an attempt to prejudice the defendant’s case, then the trial court may order the evidence suppressed. If it is determined that the officers were grossly negligent in failing to gather the evidence — for example, by acting directly contrary to standard police investigatory procedure — then the trial court may instruct the jury that it can infer that the material evidence not gathered from the crime scene would be unfavorable to the State. When the failure to gather evidence is merely negligent, an oversight, or done in good faith, sanctions are inappropriate, but the defendant can still examine the prosecution’s witnesses about the deficiencies of the investigation and argue the investigation’s shortcomings against the standard of reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torrez“Although it is a close call, we believe that there is a reasonable probability that the unavailability of the rock could affect the outcome of the case. However, much like the case in [People v.] Bradley, [ 205 Cal. Rptr. 485 (Ct. App. 1984),] the record before us indicates that the decision to photograph the rock, rather than collect it as physical evidence, was a judgment call and certainly not anything more than mere inadvertence or ordinary negligence on the part of the police. Thus, we hold that suppression of the evidence of the rock was inappropriate and that the trial court abused its discretion by suppressing this evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Torrez
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.