175 Md. App. 231 - Dickens v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably 2011 Pa. Super. 201 - Commonwealth v. Koch (2011), Griffin v. State (2011)
34 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 Lawrence Metze v. New York · State v. Hawkins · State v. Jenkins · 2 Md. App. 80 - Boone v. State · Beales 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nder Federal Rule 901, from which Maryland Rule 5-901 is derived, the burden of proof for authentication is slight, and the court 'need not find that the evidence is necessarily what the proponent claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence that the jury ultimately might do so.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]estimony of a witness with knowledge that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he only issue that separated the prosecutor and the defense ... was whether the killing of ... Dowsey was premeditated murder or a lesser degree of culpable homicide. Sherron Bush, in August of 2004, was engaged in a sexual relationship with the victim. He testified that he and the victim went to a motel in St. Mary’s County at approximately 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. on the morning of August 29, 2004. Immediately after Mr. Bush and the victim entered the motel room, Mr. Dickens tried to force his way inside the room. At 4:34 a.m. on the 29th of August 2004, Ms. Dowsey received a text message that read: “She better enjoy her last day in the motel[.] Get ready for the shocker.” After receipt of this message, the victim showed it to Mr. Bush. * * # The victim’s mother, Alma Jean Young, testified that a few months before her daughter was killed she gave the victim a cell phone so that she could call 911 in the event she had a problem with [Dickens].....A few days after her daughter’s murder, Ms. Young took possession of that cell phone and scrolled for text messages. She read the ... text message[] (quoted above) and then contacted [police.] ____ The text message sent on August 29, 2004, showed the number of the sender to be 240-431-1306. Ms. Young testified that this was the number for a cell phone that initially belonged to the victim but had been given to [Dickens] by the victim. According to Ms. Young, [Dickens] had the use of that cell phone in the July — August 2004 time period.”
1 later decision 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.