State v. Ollis’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Ramey (1986), 121 N.C. App. 306 - State v. Bass (1996)
36 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 State v. Burns · State v. Howard
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior: (2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant^]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“would have provided an alternative explanation for the medical evidence presented . . . and falls within exception (b)(2) of Rule 412.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although the evidence of an alternative source of the physical condition possibly resulting from rape was irrelevant to the sexual offense charge, we also are not convinced that under the circumstances its exclusion was harmless. If the sexual offense charge had been tried separately, the physician’s testimony would not have been relevant, and the evidence regarding rape of the victim by another man as an alternative explanation for the victim’s physical condition also would have been irrelevant. Because the two offenses were tried together, however, the enhancing character of the doctor’s evidence, appearing as it did to corroborate the victim’s testimony that she was penetrated, in turn enhanced the credibility of the witness regarding a second sexual offense by the defendant. For that reason we also find that the error was prejudicial to the defendant’s defense against the charge of first-degree sexual offense.”
2 later decisions 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.