State v. Charette’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(f) Demands for Production of Names, Addresses, and Statements of Witnesses; Statements of Codefendants; Statements of Other Persons. (1) Names, Addresses, and Statements of Prosecution Witnesses. Upon a defendant’s written request, the prosecution must furnish the defendant: [[Image here]] (B) any statements made by the listed prosecution witnesses; and [[Image here]] (4) The term “Statement,” as used in Rule 16(f) means: (A) a written statement made by the witness, codefendant, or other person and signed or otherwise adopted by the declarant; or (B) a stenographic, mechanical, electronic, or other record, or a transcription of a record, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by the witness, code-fendant, or other person to an agent of the prosecution and recorded contemporaneously with the making of the oral statement.”

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

2. “Rule 16 is a discovery rule, not a constitutional mandate, designed to further the interests of fairness. State v. Ensminger, 542 N.W.2d 722, 723 (N.D.1996). Although the trial court may impose sanctions for a failure to comply with Rule 16, including prohibiting the delinquent party from introducing into evidence the material not disclosed under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2), before the issue of sanctions becomes relevant there must be a threshold determination that Rule 16 was violated.”

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

3. “A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor.”

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