31 Wash. App. 352 - State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2016
18 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 Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · LaRocca v. United States · United States v. Cook · United States v. Smith · United States v. Hayes
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the length of the defendant's criminal record; (2) remoteness of the prior conviction; (3) nature of the prior crime; (4) the age and circumstances of the defendant; (5) centrality of the credibility issue; and (6) the impeachment value of the prior crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The defendant] next argues that evidence of his prior crimes is inadmissible because the crimes did not involve dishonesty or false statement under ER 609(a)(2). We acknowledge, without imprimatur, that there is considerable authority that certain crimes, such as felony-murder and robbery, are not crimes involving deception or dishonesty within the meaning of the rule. See United States v. Smith, [ 551 F.2d 348 , 39 A.L.R. Fed. 539 (D.C. Cir. 1976)]; State v. Moore, 29 Wn. App. 354 , 628 P.2d 522 (1981). This curious position is anchored upon a distinction between crimes of violence and crimen falsi; i.e., between crimes of passion as opposed to those of deception. Fortunately, we are not required to enter this wonderland of illogic because the prior convictions are admissible under ER 609(a)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is a comparison of the importance that the jury hear the defendant's account of events with the importance that it know of his prior conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.