State v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““False information was furnished by affidavit by the accused on his marriage license application. Information contained in a Michigan marriage license application is to be provided under oath, and a false statement sworn to on an application renders the affiant hable for prosecution for perjury. Sections 25.33 and 25.39, Michigan Statutes (1961 Rev.). The state sought to test the veracity of the accused by showing the falsification. The credibility of the accused was crucial to the issue of guilt for his testimony in many respects was contrary to that of the complaining witness. As the veracity or credibility of the accused was of great significance, the inquiry of the state was pertinent. Any disparagement which resulted from this fine of cross-examination resulted not from the fact that he had been married three times previously, a fact which was irrelevant in the instant trial, but resulted from the fact of the falsification itself. The jury could reasonably conclude that as the accused had lied on the marriage license application, he may have also lied in his testimony at the trial regarding the material element of nonsupport. The court, upon the defendant’s objection, instructed the jury that it could consider the testimony only for its effect on the witness’ veracity and not as substantive evidence in the case. “No prejudicial error was committed by the trial court when the court permitted the state, during cross-examination of the accused, to attempt to impeach his cre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 43 Ohio App. 2d 63 - State v. Patterson

2. ““If the general charge, considered as a whole, is not prejudicial to the objecting party, no reversible error results from a misstatement or ambiguity in a portion thereof. See Centrello v. Basky, supra; Flynn v. Sharon Steel Corp. (1943), 142 Ohio St. 145 , 50 N. E. 2d 319 ; State v. Huffman (1936), 131 Ohio St. 27 , 1 N. E. 2d 313 ; Ochsner v. Cincinnati Traction Co. (1923), 107 Ohio St. 33 , 140 N. E. 644 ; Campbell v. Koerner (App. 1935), 20 Ohio Law Abs. 441; Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Dannenfelser (1914), 3 Ohio App. 220 , 20 C. C. (N. S.) 553.’’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 Ohio App. 2d 49 - State v. Stone

3. “Reversible error ordinarily can not be predicated upon one paragraph, one sentence or one phrase of the general charge to the jury. Where the court's charge to the jury, considered as a whole, is not prejudicial to the objecting party, no reversible error results from a misstatement or ambiguity in a portion thereof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stoner, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2003)