State v. Isom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 16 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The legislature has chosen to subject all such persons to the maximum potential penalty. Defendant's opinion makes sense, but so does that which we attribute to the legislature. There was a rational basis for the legislature to conclude that both classes of escapees are dangerous.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 Or. App. 415 - State v. Ferman-Velasco · 297 Or. App. 862 - State v. Cook

2. “"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”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Moore · State v. Montez

3. “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 118 Or. App. 320 - Dyer v. R. E. Christiansen Trucking, Inc.