State v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 65 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Idaho Code § 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief, either pursuant to motion of a party or upon the trial court’s own initiative. Summary dismissal of an application is the procedural equivalent of summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56. Summary dismissal is permissible only when the applicant’s evidence has raised no genuine issue of material fact that, if resolved in the applicant’s favor, would entitle the applicant to the relief requested.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap · State v. Azad Haji Abdullah

2. “For an out-of-court identification to taint an in-court identification, the out-of-court identification must have been “so suggestive that there is a very substantial likelihood of misidentification.” State v. Trevino, 132 Idaho 888, 892 , 980 P.2d 552, 556 (1999). “Due process requires the exclusion of identification evidence if police suggestiveness created a substantial risk of mistaken identification, except where the reliability of the identification is sufficient to outweigh the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “[S]ingle subject showups are inherently suspect and generally not condoned____” State v. Hoisington, 104 Idaho 153, 162 , 657 P.2d 17, 26 (1983). However, “reliability is the linch pin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.” Id. at 161 , 657 P.2d at 25 (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 [ 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2253 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140, 154 ] (1977)). The question of whether improper suggestiveness exists is determined from a totality of the circumstances. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196 [ 93 S.Ct. 375, 380-81 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 409-10 ] (1972). Factors to review in determining whether an identification is reliable include: “(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the identification; and ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Azad Haji Abdullah

3. “(b) The Supreme Court of Idaho shall consider the punishment as well as any errors enumerated by way of appeal. (c) With regard to the sentence the court shall determine: (1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; and (2) Whether the evidence supports the jury’s or judge’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance from among those enumerated in section 19-2515, Idaho Code. (d) Both the defendant and the state shall have the right to submit briefs within the time provided by the court, and to present oral argument to the court. (e) In addition to its authority regarding correction of errors, the court, with regard to review of death sentences, shall be authorized to: (1) Affirm the sentence of death; or (2) Set the sentence aside and remand the case for resentencing by a jury or, if waived, the trial judge. (f) The sentence review shall be in addition to direct appeal, if taken, and the review and appeal shall be consolidated for consideration.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap