State v. Posten’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The real issue is whether this evidence was sufficiently trustworthy. We believe that each case has to be considered on its own____ Here, however, we are not dealing with a conniving person who was out to get someone by faking a bad dream, but with a child who obviously had suffered. The length of time between the last of defendant’s acts and the first of the sleep statements was only a few days. Finally, and we think importantly, the trial court knew that this was not the only evidence against [the] defendant and that the evidence likely was going to be used primarily for corroborative purposes [as it was in the case sub judice ]. If this were the only evidence connecting [the] defendant to the crime, we would say that it was insufficient to support a conviction. But it was just one of a number of items of evidence offered in support of complainant’s testimony. Under all these circumstances, the error, if any, was harmless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 98 Md. App. 149 - Bayne v. State

2. “Our knowledge about dreaming indicates that, while dreams are to some degree connected to waking-hour desires and anxieties, there is no indication that dream sequences accurately mirror actual events. Therefore, sleep talk contains no probative value regarding actual events or the identities of actual participants. Since sleep talk makes the existence of a fact neither more probable or less probable, it is [irrelevant [It appears that this is a typographical error in the opinion. The context appears to indicate that this word should be “irrelevant.”], as defined by [Evidence Rule] 401. Assuming arguendo that such evidence were relevant at all, its inherent unreliability would lead to its exclusion because its probative value is more than substantially outweighed by the dangers of prejudice.”

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

3. “We believe that each case has to be considered on its own. It may be that generally evidence of this sort would be untrustworthy. Here, however, we are not dealing with a conniving person who was out to get someone by faking a bad dream, but with a child who obviously had suffered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 Wash. App. 478 - State v. Stevens