State v. Studman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 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. ““The defendant contends that when [the] evidentiary shortcomings are viewed together, the state’s case had such minimal probative value that the trial justice’s decision finding the defendant in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation was an arbitrary action. It is obvious, however, that the issue confronting the trial justice was purely one of credibility. In his decision, the trial justice examined at length the apparent inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. He nevertheless concluded that the victim’s identification of the defendant was trustworthy. Weighing evidence and assessing the credibility of witnesses are the functions of the trial court. See, e.g., State v. Chatell, 121 R.I. 528 , 401 A.2d 436 (1979); Raheb v. Lemenski, 115 R.I. 576, 579 , 350 A.2d 397, 399 (1976); Fournier v. Ward, 111 R.I. 467, 472 , 306 A.2d 802, 805 (1973). This court, with only a barren record before it rather than the flesh and bones of live witnesses, cannot possibly evaluate credibility. Accordingly, we hold that the trial justice did not act arbitrarily in resolving the eviden-tiary conflict posed at the hearing.” (Emphases added.) 121 R.I. at 769-70, 402 A.2d at 1187 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kennedy

2. ““This court, with only a barren record before it rather than the flesh and blood of live witnesses, cannot possibly evaluate credibility.” State v. Studman, R.I., 402 A.2d at 1187 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bourdeau