State v. Oliphant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Evidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing offered to prove the matter stated is hearsay evidence . . . .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. White & Stewart · 6 Kan. App. 2d 585 - State v. Belt

2. ““It may be conceded that where an extrajudicial statement is offered merely to show the fact of its having been made, it is admissible when testified to by a person who heard it. (1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 12th Edition, Anderson § 257 Verbal Acts Distinguished, p. 588.) The principle is discussed by Professor Wigmore in his work, 6 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Edition, § 1766, pp. 177, 178, in these words: “ . . The essence of the Hearsay rule is the distinction between the testimonial (or assertive) use of human utterances and their non-testimonial use. “ ‘The theory of the Hearsay rule (ante, § 1361) is that, when a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted in it, the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of our inference, and therefore the assertion can be received only when made upon the stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. If, therefore, an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to evidence the matter asserted, but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the Hearsay rule does not apply. The utterance is then merely not obnoxious to that rule. It may or may not be received, according as it has any relevancy in the case; but if it is not received, this is in no way due to the Hearsay rule.’ “The good professor goes on to group the utterances exempted from the rule under three heads: those material to the case as part of the issue, those which are verbal parts of an act, and those used circumstant”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 Kan. App. 2d 585 - State v. Belt

3. ““In our opinion the utterances were testimonial in character despite the state’s protestations that they were not being offered with that in mind. If not offered as tending to establish the defendant’s presence in the community as a circumstance bearing on guilt, it would seem highly improbable that the state would have insisted on offering the statements at all.” 210 Kan. at 455 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Harris