Foster v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 698 So. 2d 629 - Bozeman v. State · 695 So. 2d 1239 - Lott v. State · 532 So. 2d 75 - Guerrero 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, a defendant's out-of-court self-serving exculpatory statements are inadmissible hearsay. Lott v. State , 695 So.2d 1239 , 1243 (Fla. 1997). "[H]owever, where the state has 'opened the door' by eliciting testimony as to part of the conversation, [the] defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witness about other relevant statements made during the conversation." Guerrero v. State , 532 So.2d 75 , 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). "The 'opening the door' concept is based on considerations of fairness and the truth-seeking function of a trial, where cross-examination reveals the whole story of a transaction only partly explained in direct examination." Bozeman v. State , 698 So.2d 629 , 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Here, the record shows that it was the State that first elicited testimony from the officer that Foster said he found the wallet. Once the State presented a portion of Foster's statement, Foster was entitled to have the jury hear the remainder of his statement without fear of placing his credibility in issue. Thus, the trial court erred in finding that defense counsel's cross-examination of the officer opened the door to Foster's impeachment by prior convictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because this case turned on [the defendant's] credibility and whether the jury believed [his version of the crime], we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that allowing the jury to learn of his prior criminal record did not contribute to the verdict.”
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.