Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 SW3D 624 - Seibert v. State

Seibert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Moss v. State · Williams v. State · State v. Carter · Reuscher 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Absent some showing that the evidence inflamed the fact-finder or diverted its attention from the issues to be resolved, the receipt of evidence even though irrelevant and immaterial, cannot constitute prejudicial or reversible error. The test is whether the prejudicial improper admission was outcome-determinative. In pronouncing its judgment, the trial court set out in an almost perfunctory manner that: The Court, after hearing the evidence, hearing the testimony of all the witnesses and examining the suggestions filed by counsel and what the Court believes the applicable law, does make a finding that the Court believes that the — or the Court finds the Defendant guilty of the charge, finding that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, no clear and obvious statement of reliance on D.A.’s testimony was made by the trial court in reaching its decision. Nothing in the record shows the trial [court] considered and relied upon inadmissible “habit” evidence in making its determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, Appellant has not shown that the inadmissible evidence played a critical role in the trial court’s decision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “if such testimony were inadmissible — an issue we do not reach — Defendant “has failed to explain how reversible error could have occurred given this was a court-tried case. In a case where a jury has been waived, we presume the trial judge’s judgment was not influenced or prejudiced by inadmissible evidence, unless the record clearly indicates otherwise.””
    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.