Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably Gammel v. State (1976), Farr v. State (1975)
37 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 Lego v. Twomey · First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba · Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc. · 51 Ill. 2d 17 - People v. Bombacino · 51 Ill. 2d 471 - People v. Armstrong
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e held in the earlier Smith case that, whenever the accused introduced evidence of coercion, the burden of the state could only be met by calling all material witnesses or giving adequate explanation for the absence of any who did not testify. Nowhere in Smith does it appear that, in making an objection based upon a contention the state has failed to show a statement is involuntary, a defendant must point out, in precise words, that a material witness was not called.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The burden of proving that a confession is voluntary is one which the State must assume when the admissibility of a confession is questioned on the grounds that it was coerced. Only by producing all material witnesses connected with the controverted confession can the State discharge this burden.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Adams v. State · Maxfield v. State“We have never held, and we do not now hold, that the state must call every witness who had any connection, however remote and inconsequential, with the giving of an in-custody statement. When that participation is significant, however, and the witness would be a “material” one, the rule of Smith v. State, 254 Ark. 538 , 494 S.W.2d 489 , stands undiluted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stone 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.