Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A trial court may generally take judicial notice of its own records in a case involving the same subject matter between the same or practically the same parties. However, testimony from a previous trial cannot be considered by the trial judge at a subsequent trial unless it is admitted into evidence at the subsequent proceeding. The trial judge's own memory of what the witness may have said at the prior proceeding is insufficient to substitute for an accurate and properly authenticated record of that testimony. A fact is not capable of accurate and ready confirmation simply because a trial judge remembers that a witness testified to it in trial. While a court may take judicial notice of the existence of the testimony in a co-defendant's trial, as the trial court did in this case, a court may not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual content of that testimony because its accuracy can reasonably be questioned. A trial judge may not even judicially notice testimony that was given at a temporary hearing in a family law case at a subsequent hearing in the same cause without admitting the prior testimony into evidence. Further, while a court may judicially notice the existence of an affidavit in its file, it may not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual contents contained therein.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re CL

2. “the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of prior testimony without admitting a transcript of it into evidence”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re CL