Goff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To challenge a ruling excluding evidence, an appellant must proffer the excluded evidence so we can review the decision, unless the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context. Leaks v. State, 339 Ark. 348 , 5 S.W.3d 448 (1999) (citing Ark. R. Evid. 103(a)(2)); Tauber v. State, 324 Ark. 47 , 919 S.W.2d 196 (1996); Davis v. State, 319 Ark. 460 , 892 S.W.2d 472 (1995). Certainly, as Mrs. Goff argues, it is evident from the context of the various arguments that she wished to testify about her innocence. However, absent a proffer of the testimony she sought to admit, we cannot tell how the testimony she claims she was precluded from giving differs from that which the trial court ruled admissible. Because she failed to proffer the testimony she wished to present, Mrs. Goff cannot now claim that the trial court erred by excluding it. Huddleston v. State, 339 Ark. 266 , 5 S.W.3d 46 (1999) (citing McGehee v. State, 338 Ark. 1532 , 175, 992 S.W.2d 110, 124 (1999)).”

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

2. “[u]pon retiring for deliberation, the jury may take with them all papers which have been received as evidence in the cause.”

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