Wall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Kirby (2006), Davis v. State (2006)
99 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District)
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Crawford v. Washington · Ornelas v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts · Sullivan v. Louisiana
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] number of questions emerge as relevant in distinguishing between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay made under circumstances that would cause an objective witness to reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. First, was the statement at issue elicited by or made in response to law enforcement or prosecutorial inquiry? Second, did the “statement” involve more than a routine and objective cataloging of unambiguous factual matters? Finally, was the primary purpose for making, or eliciting, the statements the production of evidence with an eye toward trial?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In part, the distinctive standards of review for hearsay objections and Confrontation Clause objections to the. ad mission of excited utterances arise because the hearsay exception depends largely upon the subjective state of mind of the' declarant at the time of the statement, whereas the issue of whether an out-of-court statement (excited or otherwise) is “testimonial” under Crawford depends upon the perceptions of an objectively reasonable declarant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An inquiring court first should determine whether a particular hearsay statement qualifies as an excited utterance. If not, the inquiry ends. If, however, the statement so qualifies, the court then must look to the attendant circumstances and assess the likelihood that a reasonable person would have either retained or regained the capacity to make a testimonial statement at the time of the utterance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.