State v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

216 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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, a party who delves into a particular subject during the examination of a witness cannot object if the opposing party later questions the witness on the same subject.... The party who initiates discussion on the issue is said to have opened the door to rebuttal by the opposing party. Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.... This rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.... The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.... The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.... Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.... We review for abuse of discretion the trial court's determination that a party has opened the door to otherwise inadmissible rebuttal evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 1 - State v. Frazier

2. ““The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice. . . . The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Graham, supra, 200 Conn. 13 -14.”

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

3. “The trial court is charged with the responsibility to exclude evidence CT Page 5747 where its prejudicial tendency outweighs its probative value. . . . Evidence is prejudicial when it tends to have some adverse effect upon a [party] beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 5740 - Pierce v. Fales, No. Cv-99-0088423 S (May 3, 2002)