Hightower v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Lynch v. State (1974), Davis v. State (1981)
38 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 · White v. State · Smith v. State · Dillard v. State · Wedmore 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he jury was completely informed of the conversation between the witnesses ... and was given adequate information by which it could judge the reliability and credibility of the revised testimony”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““When irregularities such as this are the ground of the appeal there should be a strong presumption that the jury was able to follow the admonitions of the trial court to disregard any hastily given evidence. In cases concerning an irregularity bearing on a constitutionally secured right or concerning an evidentiary harpoon we do undertake to assess the probable impact of the irregularity on the final verdict of the jury and we do require a high level of assurance that the irregularity did not affect the verdict before we will affirm the judgment. However in cases involving simple irregularities as here we may rely on a lower level of assurance concerning the impact on the jury because the likelihood of their affect on substantial rights is much less. If the appellant cannot demonstrate to us that these irregularities had a discernible and apparent affect on the verdict of the jury we will not undertake to scrutinize the evidence at trial in the relationship to the verdict of the jury and subject it to a test of fairness.” Hightower v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 481 , 296 N.E.2d 654, 659 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State · Smith v. State““. . . It has long been held in Indiana that the testimony of a victim under sixteen even though uncorroborated, is of itself sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for rape, provided each and every material element of the crime charged was contained in her testimony. ...””
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.