State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Fryer v. State (1982), State v. Horn (1979)
31 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Griffin v. California · Malloy v. Hogan · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · 15 Cal. 3d 248 - Johnson v. Superior Court
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Q. Now, what was your primary responsibility, Officer Stevens? A. Of getting the witnesses in the bar and interviewing them and taking statements from them on what they observed? Q. Did you do this? A. Yes, I did. Q. Where were most of the witnesses interviewed? Did you talk to any witnesses at the bar? A. I briefly talked to two or three witnesses at the bar or more, but they were transported to the police station or asked to come to the police station. After we gathered their names, we took statements from them there. Q. Did you then, or were you then responsible for obtaining statements from witnesses at the police station? A. Yes. Q. And approximately how many statements did you obtain as a result of your investigations? A. I think I took twelve statements. Q. In any of these statements, did you receive any information indicating that the defendant was armed with a weapon at the time he was shot? A. Mr. Sharp, that was shot, did not have any kind of a weapon at all.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson“Error in the admission of hearsay is presumed to be prejudicial unless the contrary is affirmatively established. Although not specifically.in the hearsay context, we have stated that prejudice will not be found where substantially the same evidence is in the record without objection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Farris“a considerable body of evidence in the record, without objection”
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.