219 N.J. Super. 452 - State v. Cusick’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably State v. Stevens (1989), State v. Marrero (1997)
98 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 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Delaware v. Fensterer · State v. MacOn · County of Sonoma v. Isbell · In Re Myron Farber
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Y]ou may not take this evidence from [the witness] and conclude from it that the defendant ... is a bad person, and thus has a disposition which shows that he is likely to have done the act which he is charged with, or to show a general predisposition of the defendant to commit bad acts.... The rules of evidence do, however, permit such testimony where such evidence ... relates to some other fact in issue here, including motive.... Here the evidence was admitted as it may bear on the issue of whether the alleged touching of [the victims] was accidental or it was a mistake. Likewise, it might also bear on the defendant's motive for allegedly touching the victims here. This is to obtain some sort of sexual gratification, or on the issue of his intention to touch the children, victims here. [ Id. at 466 , 530 A. 2d 806 .]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Oliver · State v. GS“Extremely probative of whether defendant’s acts were done for purposes of sexual arousement or gratification was the evidence that defendant had previously pleaded guilty to having sexually assaulted young girls. This fact supported the inference that defendant enjoyed or was stimulated by sexual acts with young girls and was therefore relevant to whether or not defendant was guilty of sexual contact, [/d at 465-66, 530 A.2d 806 .]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Covell · State v. Marrero“(1) only "notes that are verbatim accounts of the complainant's declarations and notes that the complainant has approved as accurately reflecting what she said" are to be inspected by defense counsel; (2) the trial court is to conduct an in camera inquiry to determine whether the matters contained in the rape crisis counselor's files are such verbatim only "statements"; (3) after the trial court identities the verbatim statements of the complainant, the defense counsel is to examine "these statements with an eye toward the utility or permissibility of their ultimate use at trial"; and (4) the defense counsel need not be given access to all statements in the file rather, the court is to withhold from defense inspection "statements contained in a ... file [that] have no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the alleged offense and [that] relate instead only to ... counselling services...." [ Ritchie, supra, 502 A.2d at 156 (quoting PAAR, supra, 428 A.2d at 132 )]. [ Ibid. ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.