Pettie v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2018
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 Davis v. Alaska · Allen v. United States · Padilla-Martinez v. United States · Laverick v. United States · Machibroda v. United States
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.
““As a general matter, evidence of conduct of the accused subsequent to the charged criminal offense is admissible if probative of culpability. See 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 278. Evidence has been admitted which tends to show the accused resisted arrest, Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118 , 23 S.Ct. 42 , 47 L.Ed. 100 (1902); took to flight or concealment prior to arrest, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); suppressed or destroyed evidence, Hickory v. United States, 160 U.S. 408 , 16 S.Ct. 327 , 40 L.Ed. 474 (1896); escaped or attempted to escape from custody, Hunt v. State, 312 Md. 494 , 540 A.2d 1125 (1988); concealed his identity, Wright v. State, 312 Md. 648 , 541 A.2d 988 (1988); attempted suicide, State v. Campbell, 146 Mont. 251 , 405 P.2d 978 (1965); possessed weapons, People v. Northcott, 209 Cal. 639 , 289 P. 634 (1930); possessed stolen property, State v. Barnes, 47 Or. 592 , 85 P. 998 (1906); or engaged in similar conduct. See Wigmore, Evidence, § 276 (3d ed.1940). “Under Maryland law, evidence of a defendant’s flight is admissible, not as conclusive of guilt, but as a circumstance tending to show a consciousness of guilt. Wright v. State, supra, 312 Md. 648 , 541 A.2d 988 ; Hunt v. State, supra, 312 Md. 494 , 540 A.2d 1125 ; Davis v. State, 237 Md. 97 , 205 A.2d 254 (1964), cert. denied, Davis v. Maryland, 382 U.S. 945 , 86 S.Ct. 402 , 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965); Westcoat v. State, 231 Md. 364 , 190 A.2d 544 (1963). “As we see it, ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Snyder v. State““ ‘Although the scope of a defendant’s right to introduce evidence of bias is not limitless, and may be restricted as the trial court in its sound discretion deems proper, it is rarely proper to cut off completely a probative inquiry that bears on a feasible defense. “(A) defendant should be afforded the opportunity to present facts which, if believed, could lead to the conclusion that a witness who has testified against him either favored the prosecution or was hostile to the defendant. Evidence of all facts and circumstances which ‘tend to show that a witness may shade his testimony for the purpose of helping to establish one side of a cause only,’ should be received”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Redditt v. State“[Requiring a foundation makes perfect sense for reasons of fairness “in order that the witness may be enabled to refresh his recollection in regard to such statements, and be afforded the opportunity of making such explanation as he may deem necessary and proper.””
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.