Prout v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

145 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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whether a trial judge’s ruling granting a motion in limine may be reviewed on appeal when there is no subsequent proffer of the evidence at trial presents a question of first impression in this Court. Typically, a motion in limine is a motion made before or during a jury trial outside of the hearing of the jury, the purpose of which is to prevent the jury from hearing certain questions and statements that are allegedly prejudicial to the movant. Specifically, the motion usually seeks an order restricting opposing counsel from offering questionable evidence before the judge has had an opportunity to rule on its admissibility. Evidence is most often sought to be excluded because it is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible. See generally McCormick on Evidence § 52, at 128 (E. Cleary 3d ed.1984). Thus, the real purpose of a motion in limine is to give the trial judge notice of the movant’s position so as to avoid the introduction of damaging evidence which may irretrievably infect the fairness of the trial. Obviously, the trial judge may either grant or deny the motion. If the trial judge admits the questionable evidence, the party who made the motion ordinarily must object at the time the evidence is actually offered to preserve his objection for appellate review. However, when the trial judge resolves these motions by clearly determining that the questionable evidence will not be admitted, and by instructing counsel not to proffer the eviden”

   19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Young · 80 Md. App. 387 - Beghtol v. Michael

2. “[vjery well.” . It is possible that defense counsel could have, consistent with counsel's professional obligations, asked additional questions regarding the general location that invited the court to narrow its earlier ruling on the State's motion in limine, but the appeal point was not lost by failing to do so. . Prout made an unusual motion in limine — he filed a motion asking the court to admit, rather than exclude evidence, which was denied.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Reed v. State · Church v. State

3. “[O]n cross-examination when you ask her about her prior convictions, do not ask her what she has been convicted of. Lead her and say, ‘Is it not true that you have been convicted of theft and shoplifting?’ et cetera, so ... we will not inadvertently get into the other inadmissible convictions.”

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