Billodeau v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Defense counsel]: I have witnesses, ... Nancy Kline, Matthew Kline, and Nathan Kline, all of whom are going to be brought forward to impeach the testimony of [J.B.]. All on the issue — specific to the issue of what the child’s credibility is. And they will all say that he did, in fact, make those accusations that I asked [J.B.] about. For those reasons, both as a matter of credibility and under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution, ... I believe that it is, both, relevant materially] ... and for a trier of fact to be able to make a rational decision about the credibility of an individual. [[Image here]] [Trial Court]: Now, when is it that your witnesses are going to say that statement occurred? [Defense counsel]: The times that I just put into the record, Judge. Summer of 2004, which [J.B.] agreed to. [Trial Court]: Okay. And that would be a year after the alleged conduct in this ease, correct? [Defense counsel]: Yes, sir. [Trial Court]: All right. Go ahead. [Defense counsel]: And the other one occurred this year. That was Nancy Kline. [[Image here]] [Trial Court]: Okay. I’m going to deny it if you can’t show me a case that says you’re entitled to that. You got [J.B.] for cross-examination purposes as to these events. You were specific in your arguments to the Court you don’t want anything else to come in, but now you’re going to leap forward to bring in other conduct of the complainant without even bringing in conduct of the defendant within a seven-da”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Billodeau v. State

2. “Appellant’s issue states that these threats were made “around the same time as the accusations in the alleged offense.” As stated above, the record clearly shows that any threats by J.B. toward the Klines were made over a year after the instant offense, and it was on this ground that the trial court denied admission of the Klines’ testimony ... in light of the remoteness in time and the dissimilarity between the alleged threats toward the Klines and the accusation in the charged offense, the Klines’ testimony was not relevant because it was not probative regarding J.B.’s credibility at the time of the instant offense. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Klines’ testimony. [[Image here]] Appellant has not cited any authority for his proposition that evidence that the complainant in a sexual assault may have made threats of false accusations toward others a year after the charged offense is relevant to determining the complainant’s credibility at the time of the offense. To support his contention that the evidence was relevant, appellant relies on Thomas v. State, 669 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, pet. refd). However, as discussed above, the complainant in Thomas made false accusations of rape or attempted rape in the months prior to claiming that she had been raped by the defendant. Id. at 421-23 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Billodeau v. State