23 Md. App. 131 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably State v. Simpson (1985), 51 Md. App. 614 - Agnew v. State (1982)
32 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 Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · General Telephone Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Wilson v. State · Gajewski v. United States · Hayes v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“«* * * Although neither counsel is rendered incompetent as a witness because of his participation in the trial, the right of one to call the other is not exactly a ‘two-way street’ in view of defendant’s constitutional rights. This does not mean, however, that defense counsel has an uncontrolled right to call the trial prosecutor to the stand. * * * * * # “The defendant in a criminal trial has the right to prove his defense in the best manner available to him; the trial prosecutor is a competent witness; his testimony must be relevant and material to the theory of the defense; it must not be privileged, repetitious, or cumulative. See State v. Lee, 203 S.C. 536 , 28 S.E.2d 402 , 149 A.L.R. 1300 (1943) and annotation, ‘Competency of prosecuting attorney as a witness.’ 149 A.L.R. 1305 . All this lies in the broad discretionary right of the trial judge to control the trial of the case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Montez v. State · State v. Inman““Where hearsay evidence has been improperly admitted over the objection of the adverse party, the error will require a reversal if the evidence relates to a material issue or is prejudicial to such adverse party. If the hearsay evidence is neither material nor prejudicial, the error will be ignored, provided that the conviction is amply supported by other competent evidence. Thus, the admission of hearsay evidence will not constitute reversible error where it is merely cumulative.” Johnson v. State, 23 Md. App. 131, 136 , 326 A. 2d 38, 42 (1974).”
1 later decision 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.