State v. Barriner’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited
67 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Mims v. Browning Manufacturing · Hopkins v. Reeves · Webster v. United States · King v. Pennsylvania · State v. Bernard
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is a distinction between evidence-specific and outcome-determinative prejudice. When the prejudice resulting from the improper admission of evidence is only evidence-specific and the evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming, reversal is not required. In contrast, when the prejudice resulting from the improper admission of evidence is outcome-determinative, reversal is required. A finding of outcome-determinative prejudice “expresses a judicial conclusion that the erroneously admitted evidence so influenced the jury that, when considered with and balanced against all of the evidence properly admitted, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different conclusion but for the erroneously admitted evidence.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Black · State v. Johnson“The question is not ... whether the state made a submissible case, but whether the prejudice resulting from improper admission of evidence is outcome-determinative, requiring reversal. Put another way, the question is whether the evidence had an effect on the jury’s deliberations to the point that it contributed to the result reached. Even if reasonable minds may differ with respect to whether there is overwhelming evidence of guilt in this case, that is not the only consideration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“argued vigorously to the trial court in response to motions in limine filed by appellant in advance of trial that the evidence was relevant, both logically and legally.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sapien
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.