State v. Gage’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2021
21 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 Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Henry v. United States · Giordenello v. United States
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) Inconsistency:' The statements must be inconsistent. 2) Relevancy: The inconsistency must “relate to a matter of sufficient relevancy that the prosecution’s case will be adversely affected if the inconsistent testimony is allowed to stand.” 3) Compliance with Rule 613 (SDCL §§ 19-14-24 and 19-14-25): The prior statement must, on request, be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel, and “if extrinsic evidence is to be used to prove the prior statement, the witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny it, and the opposing party must have an opportunity to interrogate the witness about it.” 4) Limiting instructions: The trial court “must adequately instruct the jury about the limited purpose for which the prior inconsistent statement is admitted.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘It is axiomatic to a fair trial that the state obey the court’s orders concerning the conduct of the trial.... It is well to keep in mind that a prosecutor’s duty is not simply to convict but to do justice.’ (Citation omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]his case is one in which a witness (the girl friend) was called by the State only to serve as a `strawman' for the introduction of inadmissible hearsay (by the informant). The State called the girl friend on the pretense of having her impeach [defendant], but she did not do so, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the State actually thought she would do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ashker
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.