Mouzone v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Bloodsworth v. State (1986), Nance v. State (1993)
44 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 Basoff v. State · Neusbaum v. State · Wilson v. State · Stevens v. State · Hall v. State
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The essence of the excited utterance exception is the inability of the declarant to have reflected on the events about which the statement is concerned. It requires a startling event and a spontaneous statement which is the result of the declarant’s reaction to the occurrence. The rationale for overcoming the inherent untrustworthiness of hearsay is that the situation produced such an effect on the declarant as to render his reflective capabilities inoperative. The admissibility of evidence under this exception is, therefore, judged by the spontaneity of the declarant’s statement and an analysis of whether it was the result of thoughtful consideration or the product of the exciting event.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, the State contends that Byrd’s statement is admissible as a prior extrajudicial identification. It is true that the Court in Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643 , 119 A.2d 917 (1956) held that an extrajudicial identification is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule where the identification was such as to preclude any suspicion of unfairness or unreliability. We reaffirmed that holding recently is Bedford v. State, 293 Md. 172 , 443 A.2d 78 (1982). However, we did not hold that a statement containing an extrajudicial identification and also other hearsay evidence falling under no exception would be admissible at trial. We believe our observation precludes the statement from being admitted; it simply contained too much. The statement Byrd gave to Danko asserted that Byrd had witnessed the killing; that she had seen the killer; that he had run past her and in a specific direction; that he was of a particular height and build and wore certain described clothing; that she had selected a particular photograph as being a picture of the man she saw running from the scene of the crime; and that the statement was true and correct. Byrd’s statement contained much more than an identification and was thus beyond the scope of this exception. We hold, therefore, that, since Byrd’s statement was hearsay that did not fall within any exceptions to the hearsay rule, it was error for the trial judge to admit the statement as substantive evidence of guilt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“At a minimum, in order to qualify as past recollection recorded, the party who seeks to move the statement into evidence must show some impairment of present recollection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sanders v. State
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.