139 Ga. App. 101 - McCarty v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently February 2010
23 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 Moore v. State · Eades v. State · Beach v. State · Rolland v. State · Johnson v. State
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While a witness may be discredited by proof of general bad character or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, it is not competent to discredit him by showing that he has committed, been arrested for, confined for, or even indicted for such an offense. [Cits.] ... It is necessary to introduce an authenticated copy of the record of the court in which he was convicted. [Cits.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although both parties are entitled to a `thorough and sifting' cross examination (Code § 38-1705), this right is not unlimited. White v. State, 74 Ga. App. 634 ( 40 SE2d 782 ). The scope of cross examination rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge ... and his ruling will not be disturbed unless such discretion be abused. Moore v. State, 221 Ga. 636, 639 (2) ( 146 SE2d 895 ). This right must be `tempered and restricted so as not to infringe on privilege areas or wander into the realm of irrelevant testimony.' Eades v. State, 232 Ga. 735, 737 ( 208 SE2d 791 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A witness may be impeached in any one of the methods set forth in [OCGA § 24-9-80 et seq.], by disproving facts testified to by him ([OCGA § 24-9-82]), by previous contradictory statements ([OCGA § 24-9-83]), evidence of general bad character ([OCGA § 24-9-84]), and proof of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (Beach v. State, 138 Ga. 265 (1) ( 75 SE 139 )).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vincent v. State
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.