State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A mistrial is the equivalent of no trial and leaves the cause pending in the circuit court. State v. Smith, 336 S.C. 39 , 518 S.E.2d 294 (Ct.App.1999). It leaves the parties ‘as though no trial had taken place.’ Grooms v. Zander, 246 S.C. 512, 514 , 144 S.E.2d 909, 910 (1965) (rulings of trial judge in proceeding ending in mistrial represent no binding adjudication upon the parties as the mistrial leaves the parties in status quo ante). A court ruling as to admissibility and competency of testimony during a trial which is later declared a mistrial results ‘in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties.’ Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572 , 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 (1948). [[Image here]] “Here, the ease having resulted in a mistrial, it was a nullity and therefore began anew when called again for trial. State v. Mills, 281 S.C. 60 , 814 S.E.2d 324 , cert. denied 469 U.S. 930 , 105 S.Ct. 324 , 83 L.Ed.2d 261 (1984) (when mistrial occurs because of inability of jury to agree on verdict, it is the same as if no trial took place).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ashenfelder v. City of Georgetown · 60 So. 3d 326 - Morris v. State

2. “Where there is an issue as to whether or not an in-court identification by a witness is of independent origin and based upon observations of a suspect other than in the course of any improper confrontation or line-up, the defendant is entitled to an in camera hearing. State v. Williams, 258 S.C. 482, 485 , 189 S.E.2d 299, 300 (1972). Thus, our supreme court has “adopted a per se rule requiring the court to hold an in camera hearing when the state offers witnesses whose testimony identifies the defendant as the person who committed the crime and the defendant challenges the in-court identification as being tainted by a previous illegal identification.” State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80, 82-83 , 417 S.E.2d 92, 93 (1992) (citing State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249 , 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971)).”

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