Stewart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ark. R. Evid. 403 (1999) permits the exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Accordingly, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Ark. R. Evid. 403. This court will not reverse a trial court for admitting photographs absent an abuse of discretion. Jones v. State, 329 Ark. 62, 65 , 947 S.W.2d 339 , cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 574 (1997). In Jones, we discussed the guidelines for determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion by admitting photographs. For example, although we are highly deferential to a trial court’s discretion, we have rejected a carte blanche approach to the admission of photographs. Jones, 329 Ark. at 65 , 947 S.W.2d at 340 (quoting Camargo v. State, 327 Ark. 631 , 940 S.W.2d [464] (1997) (internal citations omitted)). In making the admission determination, we require a trial court to consider, first, whether the relevant evidence creates a danger of unfair prejudice, and, second, whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Jones, 329 Ark. at 66 , 947 S.W.2d at 341 (quoting Camargo v. State, 327 Ark. 631 , 940 S.W.2d [464] (1997) (internal citations omitted)). Significandy, after applying the Rule 403 balancing test, we have held that even the most”

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

2. “The state is entided to amend an information to conform to the proof when the amendment does not change the nature or degree of the alleged offense ... Such authorization simplifies procedure and eliminates some technical defenses by which an accused might escape punishment... The change sought by the state would not have changed the nature or degree of the offense but would merely have authorized a less severe penalty.”

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