Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 Md. App. 593 - COLKLEY & FIELDS v. State

204 Md. App. 593 - COLKLEY & FIELDS v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

2 district · 13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · North Carolina v. Pearce · Bohnert v. State · Hunt v. State · Heinze v. State

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

  1. “(a) In general.—During the trial of a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a felonious violation of Title 5 of the Criminal Law Article or with the commission of a crime of violence as defined in § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article, a statement as defined in Maryland Rule 5-801(a) is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the statement is offered against a party that has engaged in, directed, or conspired to commit wrongdoing that was intended to and did procure the unavailability of the declarant of the statement, as defined in Maryland Rule 5-804.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(b) Impeachment by examination regarding witness’s own prior conduct not resulting in convictions. The court may permit any witness to be examined regarding the witness’s own prior conduct that did not result in a conviction but that the court finds probative of a character trait of untruthfulness. Upon objection, however, the court may permit the inquiry only if the questioner, outside the hearing of the jury, establishes a reasonable factual basis for asserting that the conduct of the witness occurred. The conduct may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Exculpatory” is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “clearing or tending to clear from alleged faith or guilt.” The various jurisdictions have adhered basically to this definition. The State of Texas in the case of Moore v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.M. 97, [100,] 60 S.W.2d 453 [, 455 (1933) ], said that “Exculpatory” means “clearing, or tending to clear, from alleged fault or guilt; excusing.” In the case of State v. Langdon, 46 N.M. 277 , [279,] 127 P.2d 875 [, 876 (1942) ], [the Supreme Court of New Mexico] used the following language: “The word ‘exculpate’ is employed in the sense of excuse or justification.””
    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.