162 Ind. App. 259 - Faust v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Because of the wide variety of possible occurrences at a trial which may trigger motions for a mistrial on the part of a defendant our review of a trial court’s decisión on such matters must of necessity be grounded on the particular facts and situations of each case. Martin & Thornton v. State (1974), [262] Ind. [232], 314 N.E.2d 60 ; White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64 , 272 N.E.2d 312 . Moreover, since the trial judge who initially rules on such a mistrial motion is in a more advantageous position than an appellate court to accurately gauge the surrounding circumstances of the conduct and its probable impact on the jury we afford the trial court significant discretion and deference in its ruling. Gregory v. State (1972), [259] Ind. [295], 286 N.E.2d 666 .” See also: Austin v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 529 , 319 N.E.2d 130, 133 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 Ind. App. 360 - Bradberry v. State

2. “[w]hen there has been a sufficient and specific objection to the testimony, it is not necessary to repeat the objection whenever testimony of the same class is offered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Ind. App. 502 - Moss v. State