State v. Wargo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

126 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay and is generally inadmissible unless an exception to the general rule applies.... Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is the spontaneous utterance exception, which applies to an utterance or declaration that: (1) follows some startling occurrence; (2) refers to the occurrence; (3) is made by one having the opportunity to observe the occurrence; and (4) is made in such close connection to the occurrence and under such circumstances as to negate the opportunity for deliberation and fabrication by the declarant.... [T]he ultimate question is whether the utterance was spontaneous and unreflective and made under such circumstances as to indicate absence of opportunity for contrivance and misrepresentation.... Whether an utterance is spontaneous and made under circumstances that would preclude contrivance and misrepresentation is a preliminary question of fact to be decided by the trial judge.... The trial judge exercises broad discretion in deciding this preliminary question, and that decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an unreasonable exercise of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 176 Conn. App. 518 - State v. Pugh

2. “[Tjhe state is not required to establish such personal observation by the declarant beyond any possible doubt. Rather, the question for the trial court is whether a reasonable inference may be drawn that the declarant had personal knowledge of the facts that are the subject of his or her statement.”); State v. Rawlings, 402 N.W.2d 406, 409 (Iowa 1987) (unknown bystander’s identification of defendant held admissible, as the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Simmons v. United States

3. “when she made the subject statements. Under the circumstances of the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the defendant's unexpected and unwanted appearance at the victim's doorstep startled her. 5 Additionally, the court heard testimony that the defendant was the only person the victim referred to as her”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 176 Conn. App. 518 - State v. Pugh