State v. Lemons’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 2020
13 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.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Carlson · State v. Backlund · State v. Entzi · State v. Glass · State v. Bell
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under Rule 26, North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, “in all trials the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, unless otherwise provided by statute or these rules.” North Dakota case law does not address whether telephonic testimony may be admitted in a criminal trial. The civil rule equivalent, Rule 43, N.D.R.Civ.P., requires testimony be taken orally in open court, but allows for deviation from this requirement under certain circumstances if all parties agree. Because there is no precedent for such a practice in criminal trials and such testimony appears to possibly violate Rule 26, N.D.R.Crim.P., the trial court did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously in denying [the defendant’s] request to allow [his witness] to testify by telephone. Additionally, even if the extended provisions of the civil rule were deemed applicable in this case, there was no agreement between the parties because the State objected. Therefore, the trial court properly refused to allow [the witness] to testify by telephone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hilgers“(a) Defendant’s Motion. On the defendant’s motion, the court may ... grant a new trial to that defendant if the interest of justice so requires. A motion for a new trial must specify the alleged defects and errors with particularity.... (b) Motions. (1) Newly Discovered Evidence. Any motion ... based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty and be supported by an affidavit. (2) Other Grounds. Any motion for a new trial based on any reason other than newly discovered evidence must be filed within 10 days after the verdict or finding of guilty, or within such further time frame as the court sets during the 10-day period....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fehl-Haber
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.