State v. McClain’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2020
11 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 Beasley v. United States · Winter v. State · State v. Wheeler · State v. Rhoten
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) § 274, states the rule as follows: ‘An extrajudicial statement is inadmissible as hearsay only when offered as evidence of die trudi of the matter to which it relates. If die statement is offered merely to show the fact of its having been made, it is admissible through the person who heard it. ... “6 Wigmore on Evidence (3d Ed.) § 1766, states: ‘. . . The essence of the Hearsay rule is the distinction between die testimonial (or assertive) use of human utterances and dieir nontestimonial use. The theory of die Hearsay rule . . . 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 die basis of our inference, and dierefore the assertion can be received only when made upon the stand, subject to die test of cross-examination. If, therefore, an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to evidence die matter asserted, but widiout reference to the truth of the matter asserted, the Hearsay rule does not apply. . . .’ “And, see, 2 Jones on Evidence (6th Ed.) § 8.6 which gives the following explanation: ‘If a statement previously made out of court is offered in evidence through a witness . . . not for die purpose of establishing the truth of die matter stated, but merely for die purpose of establishing the fact that the statement was made, die evidence is admissible, if it is relevant, and it is not subject to the exclusionary impact of the hearsay rul”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Smith
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.