State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In prosecutions under chapter 566[,] ... evidence of specific instances of the complaining witness’ prior sexual conduct or the absence of such instances or conduct is inadmissible, except where such specific instances are: (1) Evidence of the sexual conduct of the complaining witness with the defendant to prove consent where consent is a defense to the alleged crime and the evidence is reasonably contemporaneous with the date of the alleged crime; or (2) Evidence of specific instances of sexual activity showing alternative source or origin of semen, pregnancy or disease; (3) Evidence of immediate surrounding circumstances of the alleged crime; or (4) Evidence relating to the previous chastity of the complaining witness in cases, where, by statute, previously chaste character is required to be proved by the prosecution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Alan John Gorman

2. “As with any witness who testifies at trial, a victim in a sex offense case places her reputation for truthfulness at issue by taking the stand, and the defense may impeach the victim’s testimony by evidence of her poor reputation for truthfulness and veracity. A person is qualified to testify as to another witness’s reputation for truthfulness and veracity if it is shown that the person is familiar with the general reputation of the witness in the neighborhood or among the people with whom the witness associates. Conversely, it is irrelevant what the person personally knows of the general conduct of the witness to be impeached because personal opinion as to a witness’s truthfulness and veracity is immaterial and not admissible.”

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