State v. McClaugherty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he statements that were used by the State did not serve only to impeach; they offered an admission by Defendant on an issue that was highly disputed at trial[,]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McCLAUGHERTY · State v. MacIas

2. “Q: Is that all you told them? A: I’m pretty sure. Q: You’re aware I’ve got statements? You got copies of the statements. A: Yes. Q: So why are they lying about you then? A: Can you tell me what you’re referring to? At this point defense counsel objected to the State's line of questioning. During the subsequent bench conference, defense counsel argued to the court: Defense: He’s trying to impeach him with hearsay that’s never been admitted into evidence. [Montoya]: Inconsistent statements of admission. Court: Do we have statements from these people that say something opposite to what he’s saying? [Montoya]: When they were talking about the shooting, at first he— Court: I think what you’re doing is the objection is really to the form of the question. You can ask him, “Would it surprise you if somebody else said this, like as far as something — you know, why are they lying about you?” You’re assuming facts not in evidence, so I’m going to sustain the objection on that particular ground, okay? [Montoya] then returned to the cross-examination by asking Defendant, “[s]ir, would it surprise you to hear that your sister, Sarah Tucker, gave a statement to the police 6/19/99, the day after or the day, that morning, that said that you admitted to her that you shot — .” At this point defense counsel objected again. At the bench conference, defense counsel argued: Defense: He is attempting to impeach him with extrinsic evidence of which I have no opportunity to cross-examine him with, und”

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

3. “A proper way to conduct the impeachment would have been for the State to ask Defendant if he told them that he shot a gun that night. After Defendant denied making such a statement, then the State could have called them to testify. If either his sister or his roommate had testified that he admitted shooting a gun, the jury would have had admissible evidence of the statement to which the prosecutor referred during cross-examination. See Rule 11-801(D)(2)(a). Further, if either had testified and denied that Defendant made the statement, the State could have impeached the witness with any prior inconsistent statements made to the police. See Rule 11-613.”

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