State v. Osier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 state decisions

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Dr. Ron Miller, a pediatrician, examined the complainant on November 30, 1994. Dr. Miller testified about the result of the examination: This would be considered a non-virginal exam. The hymen was fairly well worn away and the opening of the vagina was significantly larger than would normally be seen. When asked if he had “develop[ed] a professional opinion after [the complainant’s] exam whether she had been involved in sexual intercourse,” Dr. Miller testified: A. Well, some type of intercourse was involved here to produce this and so, yes, my opinion is that she’s probably had intercourse on many occasions. It is not likely that one occasion would do this. Could several do it? Yes, possibly. Is it many more than several? Clinically this would be what would be commonly seen, for example, in a 20-year-old woman who’s been married for two years who had intercourse regularly. Dr. Miller testified “[i]t would take many; probably more than several” acts of “pen[ile]/vaginal intercourse” to “produce this type of physical finding.” This Court concluded that the excluded evidence of additional sexual contact between S.O. and her boyfriend could not account for S.O.’s physical condition: Osier provided the trial court with offers of proof, but those offers of proof did not indicate he would be able to show sexual activity with the young man of a kind and degree sufficient to cause the physical condition observed by Dr. Miller in examining the complainant— “what would be commonly seen”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas · Osier v. State

2. “Osier’s counsel told the court he wanted to go into the complainant’s sexual activity with the young man because of his testimony in an earlier trial that a week before they had intercourse, “[the complainant] engaged in fellatio upon him putting her mouth on his penis,” which counsel deemed significant, because the complainant had “claimed that there was only one occasion where anything did happen whatsoever.” Thus, Osier wanted to delve into that matter to impeach the complainant’s credibility. However, the impeachment value of that incident was merely cumulative of abundant evidence that the complainant had repeatedly lied to protect the young man. She testified she had wanted to protect him. She testified she told an investigator she had not had sex with anyone other than her father so the young man “wouldn’t get in trouble.” On cross-examination, the complainant testified that, each time she was asked if she “ever had sex with anybody [she] denied having sex with anybody other than [her] father” because she “didn’t want [the young man] to get in trouble.” On cross-examination, the complainant said she had lied to doctors about whether she had had sex with anyone. She answered “Yes” to the following question on cross-examination: “Q. So it’s fair to say that you kept lying until somebody had some physical evidence to show you were lying and then you changed the story?””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Osier v. State

3. ““The depth and the magnitude of constitutional arguments require an individual making such a challenge to either prepare an adequate and thorough foundation to support the argument, or forego its presentation. ‘The mere reference to a statute’s constitutionality, with nothing more, does not meet the standard of persuasion required to mount an attack on constitutional grounds.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Peltier