Stephens v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 1993 · most notably Espey v. State (1960), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Hatas (1971)
46 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 Grissett v. State · Stephens v. State · Campbell v. State · Pollard v. Rogers · Shelton 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a well established rule of law, that where a witness has been cross-examined respecting his former statements with a view of impairing his credit, the counsel who called him has the right to re-examine him, so as to afford him an opportunity of explaining such statements, (2 Russell on Cr. 937;) and it is also said by the same authority, that he may be asked what induced him to give to the person or persons to whom he made the communication the account which he has stated in the cross-examination. — ib. 937; 2 Brod. Bing. 297.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We think it clear that the purpose and effect of the language used by the assistant solicitor, to which the defendant duly objected, was to insist upon its misappropriation by the jury and to its use by them as evidence of the defendant’s guilt of the charge for which he was being tried. Such an argument is calculated to appeal to the not unnatural belief of the jury that a. person who is guilty of one or more serious transgressions of the law is likely to have committed another. See Under-hill’s Crim.Ev., 4th Ed., § 180.”’ .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cofield v. State““Their testimony was of a nature highly beneficial to the defendant. They denied having ever discussed with the defendant the facts about which they testified. Under such circumstances we think the State was entitled to show that these witnesses were friendly with the defendant and in touch with him prior to the first trial. Such proof should not be withheld because of the fact that it also shows that the witnesses had been confined in jail with the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State
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.