162 Ind. App. 186 - Mayes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 44 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Our analysis of case authority leads us to conclude that while any substantial break in the chain of custody to the time of trial might require exclusion of the exhibit offered, not all relevant testimony concerning that article or substance need be excluded. Where as here, the chain is unbroken from the time of its seizure to the time the substance in question has been tested with conclusive results, testimony to that effect may be received." 318 N.E.2d at 819 . (Our emphasis.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Currin v. State · King v. State

2. ““Mayes, however, has not framed his contention strictly in terms of the discharge provision of Rule CR. 4, but rather upon the premise that the failure to prosecute within the time limits set forth therein, serve to divest the trial court of jurisdiction. We reject this ‘jurisdictional’ argument in the light of In re Brooks (1966), 247 Ind. 249 , 214 N.E.2d 653 and Randolph v. State, (1954), 234 Ind. 57 , 122 N.E.2d 860 , cert. denied, 350 U.S. 889 , 76 S.Ct. 145 , 100 L.Ed. 783 (1955), which specifically held, in construing Ind.Ann. Stat. § 9-1402-1404 (the predecessors of Rule CR. 4), that a failure to make a timely motion for discharge prior to trial constitutes a waiver of the right to discharge and that under such circumstances, the jurisdiction of the criminal court is not affected.” (Emphasis added.)”

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

3. ““ ‘. . . this court holds that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness pursuant to IC 1971, 34-1-14-13 [Ind. Ann. Stat. §2-1724 (1968 Repl.)] or IC 1971, 35-1-31-6 [Ind. Ann. Stat. §9-1608 (1956 Repl.)], only those convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statement shall be admissible * * * However, this Court is bound by IC 1971, 34-1-14-14 [Ind. Ann. Stat. § 2-1725 (1968 Repl.)], which permits impeachment by showing prior convictions for crimes which would have rendered a witness incompetent. These crimes are: treason, murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, forgery and wilful and corrupt perjury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Ind. App. 604 - Hall v. State