33 Ohio App. 3d 110 - State v. Tolliver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[Defendant contends that “dishonesty,” as used in the rule, is limited to crimen falsi, namely, fraud, perjury and similar offenses. While there is some support for defendant’s position in some federal cases, courts of some states have defined “dishonesty” in a much broader sense so as to include theft offenses. Although there is some suggestion of limitation in the Staff Notes to the rule, it is inconceivable that the drafters of the rule would not have been more precise and used more limiting language, such as crimen falsi or fraud, had such a limitation been intended, rather than using the much broader term “dishonesty.” Clearly and undisputedly, a theft is inherently dishonest. Common sense dictates that stealing is a dishonest act. While dishonesty also includes deceit, it is not limited thereto.... Since a theft offense could be used to impeach under the common law, and in common parlance theft involves dishonesty, we are constrained to the common-sense conclusion that dishonest acts such as receiving stolen property and stealing are included within the meaning of the word “dishonesty,” as used in Evid. R. 609(A)(2).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Al-Amin

2. “`* * * whether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McMillen, 2008-Ca-00122 (1-20-2009)