State v. Nefstad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Q And be all right again or calm? "A Right, no need for Kleen[e]x or time to recoup or anything." (Emphasis added.) Defendant argues that the emphasized testimony was inadmissible, because it was cumulative of a tape-recorded interview between Stoelk and defendant, which the state had played for the jury just before Stoelk testified. We disagree. [10] OEC 403 provides, in part, that, "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by * * * considerations of * * * needless presentation of cumulative evidence." In this context, that rule requires a two-step inquiry: Whether the evidence at issue is cumulative and, if so, whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of its cumulative nature. We conclude that Stoelk's testimony was not cumulative of evidence already before the jury and, consequently, that further inquiry under OEC 403 is unnecessary. As discussed earlier in this opinion, Stoelk conducted two interviews with defendant. The first took place shortly before midnight on June 5, 1992, at the home of defendant's mother immediately following defendant's arrest. The second took place just after midnight on June 6, 1992, at the police station. Defendant also made several comments to Stoelk while being transported to the police station. Only the interview at the police station was recorded, and it was that recording that the state played for the jury. As noted above, the state asked Stoelk if, d”

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

2. “although a trial court may not exclude a prospective juror for cause solely because he has general objections to the death penalty, * * * a court may exclude a prospective juror whose views on the death penalty would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'”

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

3. “Personally in the context of aggravated murder means that to be guilty of that crime the Defendant must have had an actual role in causing the death and not merely a role in the felony during which the death occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pinnell v. Belleque