2011 UT App 2 - State v. Nguyen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) In any case concerning a charge of child abuse or of a sexual offense against a child, the oral statement of a victim or witness younger than 14 years of age may be recorded prior to the filing of an information or indictment, and upon motion and for good cause shown is admissible as evidence in any court proceeding regarding the offense if all of the following conditions are met: [[Image here]] (1)(g) the court views the recording before it is shown to the jury and determines that it is sufficiently reliable and trustworthy and that the interest of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and (1)(h) the child is available to testify and to be cross-examined at trial ... or the court determines that the child is unavailable....”

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

2. “[where the child witness exception now applies to victims approaching the age of fourteen years, it is apparent that many protected children are intelligent, articulate, and capable of accurately recalling events long after they have occurred.”

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

3. “the trial court made detailed written findings of fact on [the factors required by section 76-5-411 and rule 15.5] and concluded that [A. H.]'s interview was reliable and that the interest of justice would best be served by its admission.”

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