State v. Bartkowski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““RULE 103 — RULINGS ON EVIDENCE “(a) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and “(1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; . .. “(d) Errors affecting substantial rights. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rindy · State v. Helgeson

2. “Although we probably would not have limited the cross-examination in the manner that the trial court did, that is not the standard we apply in our review. Ordinarily it is preferable that trial courts permit overextended cross-examination rather than imposing limitations which may be unnecessary.... Considering the rule that one who cross-examines on an irrelevant matter is bound by the answer he receives, it is doubtful that this case would have become a political trial if Kemmet would have been permitted to answer the questions that were objected to. There is no reason to believe, and the offer of proof made no claim, that Kemmet would have admitted that, in effect, he had “framed” Bartkowski in order to build up impressive statistics in the drug law enforcement program. We cannot say, under the circumstances here, that the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination was an abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Van Ness v. United States

3. ““12.1-05-11. Entrapment. — 1. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant was entrapped into committing the offense. 2. Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement agent induces the commission of an offense, using persuasion or other means likely to cause normally law-abiding persons to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. 3. In this section ‘law enforcement agent’ includes personnel of federal and local law enforcement agencies as well as state agencies, and any person cooperating with such an agency.””

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