State v. Piper’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2005 · most notably Beck v. Alabama (1980), State v. Tamburano (1978)
36 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 Keeble v. United States · State v. Marshall Norman Hicks · 49 Wis. 2d 246 - State v. Melvin · Giles v. United States · Municipal Airport Authority of Fargo v. Halland
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[Jjuries are not to be given the discretion or freedom to pick and choose what offense the accused should be found guilty of.... The evidence must throw doubt upon the greater offense. Juries cannot rightly convict of the lesser offense merely from sympathy or for the purpose of reaching an agreement. They are bound by the evidence and should be limited to those included crimes which a reasonable view of the evidence will sustain and does not convince beyond a reasonable doubt the additional element of the greater crime existed.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Daulton · State v. Tweed“"The test is not merely whether or not the offense is a lesser included offense of the basic offense charged, but rather is whether or not there is evidence which will create a reasonable doubt as to the greater offense and support a conviction of the lesser included offense."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wiedrich · State v. Tweed““12.1-20-14. Admissibility of evidence concerning reputation of complaining witness — Gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition. — 1. In any prosecution for a violation of section 12.1-20-03 or section 12.1— 20-04, or for an attempt to commit an offense defined in either of those sections, opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances of the complaining witness’ sexual conduct, or any of such evidence, is not admissible on behalf of the defendant to prove consent by the complaining witness. This subsection shall not be applicable to evidence of the complaining witness’ sexual conduct with the defendant. “2. If the prosecuting attorney introduces evidence, including testimony of a witness, or the complaining witness gives testimony as a witness, and such evidence or testimony relates to the complaining witness’ sexual con duct, the defendant may cross-examine the witness who gives such testimony and offer relevant evidence limited specifically to the rebuttal of such evidence introduced by the prosecuting attorney or given by the complaining witness. “3. This section shall not be construed to make inadmissible any evidence offered to attack the credibility of the complaining witness in the manner authorized by law, by rule of procedure, or by the court in the interests of justice in accordance with the procedure provided in section 12.1-20-15. “4. As used in sections 12.1-20-14 and 12.1-20-15, ‘complaining witness’ means the alleged victim of th”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brickzin
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.