Merrill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A violation of an order separating witnesses does not automatically entitle a defendant to a mistrial. Hightower v. State (1973), Ind., 296 N.E.2d 654 . Nor are innocuous encounters cause for reversal. Wright v. State (1972), Ind., 285 N.E.2d 650 . Permitting a witness to testify after a violation of such an order is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Grimes v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 575 ; Myslinski v. State (1971), Ind., 275 N.E.2d 544 . The appropriate rule, dispositive of this issue, is contained in McCoy v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 104 , 170 N.E.2d 43 , where Chief Justice Arterburn held: `In the absence of any procurement or connivancy by the party using such a witness who has violated the order of the court, it is well established that it is within the discretion of the court to permit such a witness to testify. Butler v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 241 , 97 N.E.2d 492 ; Kelley v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 148 , 78 N.E.2d 547 ; Romary v. State, 1945, 223 Ind. 667 , 64 N.E.2d 22 . `It has even been held to be prejudicial error to refuse to permit such a witness to testify where the party calling such witness is not at fault for such violation. Taylor v. State, 1891, 130 Ind. 66 , 29 N.E. 415 ; State ex rel. Steigerwald v. Thomas, 1887, 111 Ind. 515 , 13 N.E. 35 .' 241 Ind., at 119 , 170 N.E.2d at 50 . "See also: Marine et al. v. State (1973), Ind. App., 301 N.E.2d 778 ." 303 N.E.2d at 665 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Ind. App. 71 - Smith v. State

2. ““. . . The conviction will be affirmed if there is evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the appellants were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .””

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