124 Md. App. 147 - West v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In summary, a trial judge considering the admissibility of a hearsay statement offered as a declaration against penal interest must carefully consider the content of the statement in the light of all known and relevant circumstances surrounding the making of the statement and all relevant information concerning the declarant, and determine whether the statement was in fact against the declarant’s penal interest and whether a reasonable person in the situation of the declarant would have perceived that it was against his penal interest at the time it was made. The trial judge should then consider whether there are present any other facts or circumstances, including those indicating a motive to falsify on the part of the declarant, that so cut against the presumption of reliability normally attending a declaration against interest that the statements should not be admitted. A statement against interest that survives this analysis, and those related statements so closely connected with it as to be equally trustworthy, are admissible as declarations against interest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. State · 139 Md. App. 557 - Wilkerson v. State

2. “Rule 5-804. Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable. (a) Definition of unavailability. “Unavailability as a witness” includes situations in which the declarant: (2) refuses to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so; (b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, so tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or so tended to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered in a criminal case is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”

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

3. “In a criminal case, the test for determining whether error by the trial court was harmless is whether, upon an independent review of the record, we are able to 'declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict [.]'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 593 - Cagle v. State