Anderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Wilhelm v. State · Degren v. State · Lawson v. State · Lee v. State · Mitchell 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Generally, counsel has the right to make any comment or argument that is warranted by the evidence proved or inferences therefrom" and, in doing so, to "indulge in oratorical conceit or flourish." Wilhelm v. State , 272 Md. 404 , 412-13, 326 A.2d 707 (1974). As long as "counsel does not make any statement of fact not fairly deducible from the evidence his argument is not improper." Id. at 412 , [ 326 A.2d 707 ]. "What exceeds the limits of permissible comment or argument by counsel depends on the facts of each case." Smith and Mack v. State , 388 Md. 468 , 488, 880 A.2d 288 (2005). Thus, the propriety of prosecutorial argument must be decided "contextually, on a case-by-case basis." Mitchell v. State , 408 Md. 368 , 381, 969 A.2d 989 (2009). Because "a trial court is in the best position to evaluate the propriety of a closing argument as it relates to the evidence adduced in a case," the exercise of its broad discretion to regulate closing argument will not be overturned "unless there is a clear abuse of discretion that likely injured a party." Ingram v. State , 427 Md. 717 , 726, 50 A.3d 1127 (2012).”
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.