228 Ga. App. 144 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘So long as the witness is made available for confrontation and cross-examination, the defendant’s rights are protected, even if the witness is uncommunicative or unresponsive. The thrust of the child witness statute is to allow the jury, which must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to judge the credibility of a child’s accusations. If a child, who has reported child molestation to an adult permitted to testify to the out-of-court statement at trial, is incapable of reiterating the accusation at trial or is unresponsive or evasive during cross-examination, the jury must decide the child’s credibility ... The manner in which the witness responds to cross-examination is, itself, evidence as to credibility.’ Bright [v. State, 197 Ga.App. 784, 785 , 400 S.E.2d 18, 20 (1990)]. ‘A witness’ responsiveness or unresponsiveness, evasiveness or directness ... are all factors which can be assessed by the jury and may raise a reasonable doubt. [Cit.]’ Jones v. State, 200 Ga.App. 103 , 407 S.E.2d 85 (1991). Accordingly, we find that Byrd’s right to confront and cross-examine J.B. was protected in spite of the child’s unresponsiveness on cross-examination as to the merits of the case brought against him.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 911 So. 2d 21 - Steele v. State