Stillson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Ballard v. State (1974), Brooks v. State (1973)
29 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 Eacock v. State · Ruloff v. . the People · Parker v. State · Osburn v. State · Westfall v. Wait
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . In Parker v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 284, 288 , 35 N. E. 1106 , appears the following: ‘The appellants, on the trial of the cause, testified in their own behalf, and the State, on cross-examination, over their objection, was permitted to ask them as to certain arrests and prosecutions against them occurring in the past, for the purpose of discrediting their testimony. . . . The testimony of an accused who testifies in his own behalf should be subject to the tests applied to the testimony of any other witnesses. It is not to be supposed that the testimony of a witness who is morally depraved, and an habitual law-breaker will, as a rule, be given the same credit as a witness who is of known moral character. In the case of Bessette v. State, 101 Ind. 85 , it was said by this Court: “It is proper, within the bounds of propriety, to be controlled by the trial court, that the character and antecedents of a witness may be subject to a test on cross-examination, and that questions which go to exhibit his motives and interests as a witness, as well as those tending to show his character and antecedents, should be allowed.” The extent to which such cross-examination shall be allowed is largely in the discretion of the trial court.’ ” [Cases cited.] Stillson v. State (1933), 204 Ind. 379, 384-385 , 184 N. E. 260 . Ewbanks Ind. Crim. L., §339, p. 203; 8 Wigmore, 3rd Ed., Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §2277, p. 453; 3 Wigmore, 3rd Ed., Testimonial Impeachment, §§890, 891, pp”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wells v. State“The trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit a witness to be recalled for the purpose of correcting or changing testimony which the witness, through error, mistake, or oversight, has previously given in a trial. Thompson on Trials (2d Ed.) vol. 1, § 350; Faust v. United States (1895) 163 U. S. 452 , 16 S. Ct. 1112 , 41 L. Ed. 224 ; Dowler v. Citizens' Gas Oil Company (1912) 71 W. Va. 417 , 76 S.E. 845 , Ann. Cas. 1914C, 341; Rhodes v. Lowry (1875) 54 Ala. 4 ; Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Duffey (1902) 116 Ga. 346 , 42 S. E. 510 ; Chicago City R. Co. v. Walsh (1907) 136 Ill. App. 73 ; Miller v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (1886) 70 Iowa, 704 , 29 N. W. 411 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.