State v. Huffstutler’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably State v. Carpenter (1967), State v. Mahkuk (2007)
33 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 Krulewitch v. United States · 188 Cal. App. 2d 718 - People v. Davis · State v. Reardon · People v. Robinson · State v. Flowers
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unlike the cases cited where the prejudice was created by the improper question of the prosecutor, the damage in the case before us lies in the low blow contributed by the answer. The fact that the prejudicial information was volunteered by the witness does not render it less harmful to defendant. The prejudicial testimony came from the state’s witness, a public official, and the prosecution is entirely responsible for its presence in the record. Ulmer v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 349 , 292 S.W. 245 ; People v. Robinson, 273 N.Y. 438 , 8 N.E.2d 25 . It is true that the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the prejudicial ■statement, but we do not think that that admonition was sufficient to repair the •damage. In State v. Reardon, 245 Minn. 509, 513 , 73 N.W.2d 192, 194 , we said: “It is well recognized that mistakes occur in most trials and, where they do not substantially affect the rights of the parties, it may be expected that the trial court by proper instruction can rely upon the intelligence and restraint of a jury to disregard them. Where, however, the impact of the prejudicial remark may be such as to impart to the minds of the jury substantial prejudicial evidence not properly a part of the case, it is taking too much for granted to say its effect can be removed by an instruction, from the court. In his concurring opinion in Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 453 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 723 , 93 L.Ed. '790, 799, Mr. Justice Jackson said: ‘The naive assumption tha”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We think the record fully supports the finding of the jury that defendant was guilty of the crime charged. The record, however, is fatally marred by improper conduct which prevented defendant from having a fair trial.”
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.