Dodson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Grant (2002), Willis v. State (1998)
38 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 Bowen v. State · Missildine v. State · Porter v. State · Terry v. State · Edwards v. State
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case at hand, we have not been provided with anything other than the bare allegations set out in [defendant’s] motion for new trial. We have no evidence as to why trial counsel made the particular decisions which are challenged in this appeal. . . . Such information is necessary for us to conduct a meaningful review of the allegations. . . .[W]e conclude that a “deemed denied” ruling on a posttrial motion for new trial is an insufficient order from which to raise on direct appeal a claim of ineffectiveness. Such a deemed ruling necessarily precludes any consideration by the trial court of the relevant facts pertaining to the claim. As the trial court is in the best position to evaluate trial counsel’s performance and competency, an order reciting its findings is necessary to enable us to conduct a meaningful review of the claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chavis v. State · Crouch v. State“(a) The records and reports of autopsies, evidence analysis, drug analysis, and any investigations made by the State Crime Laboratory under the authority of this subchapter shall be received as competent evidence as to the matters contained therein in the courts of this state subject to the applicable rules of criminal procedure when duly attested to by the executive director or his assistants, associates, or deputies. (b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to abrogate a defendant’s right of cross-examination if notice of intention to cross-examination [sic] is given prior to the date of hearing or trial pursuant to the applicable rules of criminal procedure. (c) The testimony of the appropriate analyst may be compelled by the issuance of a proper subpoena, in which case the records and reports shall be admissible through the analyst who shall be subject to cross-examination by the defendant or his counsel. (d) (1) All records and reports of evidence analysis of the State Crime Laboratory shall be received as competent evidence as to the facts in any court or other proceeding when duly attested to by the employee who performed the analysis. (2) The defendant shall give at least ten (10) days notice prior to the proceedings that he requests the presence of the employee of the State Crime Laboratory who performed the analysis for the purposes of cross-examination. (3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to abrogate the defendant’s right to cross-examination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marta v. State
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.