Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Burton v. State (1973), Little v. State (1980)
77 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 Chapman v. State of California · Mapp v. Ohio · Jones v. United States · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Harrington v. California
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the introduction of inadmissible evidence made no contribution to the verdict, then the constitutional error is harmless. Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , rehearing denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 . In Indiana, it is well settled that the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence which is merely cumulative and not decisive of guilt is not prejudicial error. See Grimes v. State (1972), [258] Ind. [257], 280 N.E.2d 575 ; Jackson v. State (1971), [257] Ind. [589], 275 N.E.2d 538 .” 287 N.E. 2d at 863 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining whether a reversal is appropriate due to erroneously admitted evidence, this Court has the duty to assess the probable impact of the evidence on the jury. Reversal is compelled where the record as a whole discloses that the erroneously-admitted evidence "was likely to have a prejudicial impact on the mind of the average juror, thereby contributing to the verdict."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Traver v. State · Dockery v. State“A person may maintain more than one home or place of habitation with the expectation that both will be free from an unlawful intrusion.”
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.