15 Ark. App. 309 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Duckett v. State (1990), Commonwealth v. Gallagher (1988)
32 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 36 Cal. 3d 236 - People v. Bledsoe · State v. Wilkerson · Dixon v. State · State v. Saldana · Hamblin 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is our conclusion from the record in the case before us that the evidence of the expert, Dr. Van Kirk, tended to focus the attention of the jury upon whether the evidence against the defendant matched the evidence in the usual case involving sexual abuse of a young child. Much of the expert’s testimony highlighted details that were parallel to the details in the case at hand. For example, the defendant here was known to the children involved. The expert testified that in 75% to 80% of such cases the perpetrator is known to the children involved. The children here were told not to tell what happened. The expert said the children are almost always told not to tell what happened. The crime here is alleged to have occurred in the home of the children. The expert testified that 50% of child sexual abuse cases occur in either the home of | uthe child or the perpetrator. The defendant here was 82 years of age. The expert testified that in child abuse cases the first offense is virtually always committed before the age of 40. The defendant here had had trouble with alcohol. The expert testified alcohol or drugs is “often a dynamic.” Other details could be recited but it is enough to say that we feel this type evidence was not of proper benefit to the jury in this case and that, as in [People v.] Bledsoe [ 36 Cal.3d 236 , 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 (1984)], it was not introduced to rebut a misconception about the presumed behavior of a rape victim but to prove, as in [State v”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“misconceptions about the presumed behavior of the victim but to prove ... that the circumstances and details in this case match the circumstances and details usually found in child abuse cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duckett 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.