State v. Hamilton’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. ““ * * * Defendant was entitled to give his reasons for registering under a fictitious name. It was for the jury to consider the explanation in passing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625e, p. 961; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 601, p. «924. At pages 925 and 926 of 22 C.J.S., we note the following: ‘As a general rule, evidence explaining evidence previously introduced, or showing that the inference arising or sought to be drawn therefrom is not warranted, is admissible; and it is sometimes so provided by statute. This rule is especially applicable where accused seeks to explain incriminating evidence introduced by the state, * *' See also State v. Dixon, Mo., 190 S.W. 290 , loc. cit. 292; Hartman v. United States, 8 Cir., 215 F.2d 386 , loc. cit. 894(9); People v. Zerillo, 36 Cal.2d 222 , 223 P.2d 223 , loc. cit. 228(8, 9); Green v. State, 258 Ala. 471 , 64 So.2d 84 , loc. cit. 89(12, 13). The rule the State invokes, that is, that it was necessary for the defendant to make an offer of proof is not applicable. That rule, as stated in 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1029, p. 404, is as follows: ‘Where the relevancy or admissibility of evidence offered is not apparent it may be rejected unless there is a statement of the purpose of its introduction by which the court may determine its relevancy or admissibility. Thus it is not error to exclude a question asked by a party, unless the party states the nature of the testimony that he expects to elicit thereb”

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