174 Md. App. 549 - Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Stabb v. State (2011), Atkins v. State (2011)
35 state decisions
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 Ornelas v. United States · Maryland v. Pringle · Conyers v. State · County Council v. Offen · Nathan 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“During this trial, you have heard testimony of witnesses and may hear argument of counsel that the State did not utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific test. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case. Your responsibility as jurors is to determine whether the State has proven based upon the evidence the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“a correct statement of the law, was applicable to the facts in the case and was not fairly covered by other instructions given[,]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Maryland appellate courts have consistently held that they will not review issues not raised or decided at the trial level. See Taylor v. State, 381 Md. 602, 612 , 851 A.2d 551 (2004) (citing Md. Rule 8-131(a) in holding that a claim of double jeopardy was not preserved because it was not raised at the trial level); Conyers v. State, 354 Md. 132, 148 , 729 A.2d 910 , (1999) (citing Md. Rule 8-131(a) in holding that several issues in review of a death sentence were not preserved because they were not raised at the trial level).... We have specifically held that the failure to argue a specific theory in support of a motion to suppress evidence constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal. Johnson v. State, 138 Md.App. 539, 560 , 772 A.2d 1260 (2001) (citing Reynolds v. State, 327 Md. 494, 502-03 , 610 A.2d 782 (1992); Brashear v. State, 90 Md.App. 709, 720 , 603 A.2d 901 (1992)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.