State v. Booze’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 40 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““must consider whether the State deliberately withheld the evidence proffered in order to have it presented at such time as to obtain an unfair advantage by its impact on the trier of facts. To this end the judge must see whether the proposed evidence is merely cumulative to, or corroborative of, that already offered in chief or whether it is important or essential to a conviction.” [Hepple v. State, 31 Md.App. 525, 534 , 358 A.2d 283 (1976), aff'd, State v. Hepple, 279 Md. 265 , 368 A.2d 445 (1977) ]. Other factors which have been identified as important to the assessment of the propriety of the trial court’s exercise of discretion to vary the order of proof include: “Whether good cause is shown; whether the new evidence is significant; whether the jury would be likely to give undue emphasis, prejudicing the party against whom it is offered; whether the evidence is controversial in nature; and, whether the reopening is at the request of the jury or a party.” Dyson v. State, 328 Md. 490 , 615 A.2d 1182 (1992).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Donnelly · 140 Md. App. 379 - Cason v. State

2. “[T]he normal rule “is that the plaintiff will be required to go fully into his own case-in-chief on [those] issues as to which he holds the substantial affirmative, and where, therefore, the burden of proof rests on him; and hence, in reply to the case made by the defendant, he will ordinarily be limited to what is strictly rebutting evidence,” but that there are exceptions necessitated by the requirements of particular cases. Those exceptions should truly be extraordinary; the trial court should be reluctant to grant reopenings. This is so because “of the desirability of maintaining an orderly trial” and “the very strong probability” that the trier of fact will give undue emphasis or prominence to evidence offered on reopening at the rebuttal stage of trial.”

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

3. “the court must also consider whether the prejudicial impact of the admission of the challenged testimony ... undermine[d] the defendant's right to a fair trial; the fact that the trial court affords a defendant a procedure ... is of little comfort when the very effect of allowing the evidence is to render the trial unfair.”

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