Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 Ind. 19 - Stevens v. State

Stevens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
September 1989
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 1989

18 state decisions

1201959196019701980decided

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 Sullivan v. State · Ray v. State · Griffiths v. State · Ridge v. State · Short 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Appellant further contends the court erred in refusing to give appellant’s tendered instruction No. 1 which was as follows: ‘You are instructed that if a witness is listed on the indictment or affidavit as a witness for the State and said witness fails to appear and testify without any explanation or evidence as to the reason for his failure to appear, the law presumes that his testimony, if it had been given, would be favorable to the defendant.’ “Appellant argues that instruction should have been given as the State of Indiana had endorsed upon the affidavit filed in the case among the names of its witnesses the names of two persons who were not called as witnesses and whose absence was not explained. “The applicable sections of the statute providing the names of all material witnesses must be indorsed on the indictment or affidavit, further provide other witnesses may thereafter be subpoenaed by the State and that unless the names are so endorsed, no continuance shall be granted to the State on account of the absence of any witness whose name is not thus endorsed. “Appellant would have us construe the statute to provide an additional penalty upon the State for failure to call a witness whose name is endorsed upon the indictment or affidavit. We believe this would amount to judicial legislation by this Court which is a function not properly indulged in by the judicial branch of the government. Art. 3, § 1, Constitution of Indiana; Art. 1, § 1, Constitution of the U. S. “Num”
    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.