State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Passmore (2010), State v. Lacey (2012)
56 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 Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Delaware v. Fensterer · State v. Swann · State v. Weaver · State v. Beavers
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An information is a written accusation of criminal conduct prepared by a prosecutor in the name of the State. The information must reasonably appraise the accused of the charges against him, so that he may have the opportunity to prepare and present his defense.” We read the information, and the affidavit in support thereof, as a whole to determine the sufficiency of the charging documents. We apply the “common understanding” rule to determine if the charging language of a document allows a person to understand the charges against him. Under this standard, “the test of the sufficiency of a charging document is whether the defendant is appraised of the charges and whether he will be surprised.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bahr“The right of a defendant in a criminal trial to confront the witnesses against him is contained in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution. “The main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (alterations and quotations omitted).... However, the constitutional guarantee of the Confrontation Clause does not mean that a defendant may cross-examine witnesses on any subjects in any manner whatsoever, without the imposition of limits by the trial judge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Slade“Under this standard, the test of the sufficiency of a charging document is 8 whether the defendant is apprised ofthe charges and whether he will be surprised.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. T. Giffin
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.