State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 183 W. Va. 641 - State v. Edward Charles L. (1990), 184 W. Va. 408 - State v. James Edward S. (1990)
29 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Oregon v. Mathiason · Hullum v. United States · Joseph Skilken & Co. v. City of Toledo · Balistrieri v. United States
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he language of Rule 804(b)(5) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and its counterpart Rule 803(24) requires that five general factors must be met in order for hearsay evidence to be admissible under the rules. First and most important is the trustworthiness of the statement, which must be equivalent to the trustworthiness underlying the specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. Second, the statement must be offered to prove a material fact. Third, the statement must be shown to be more probative on the issue for which it is offered than any other evidence the proponent can reasonably procure. Fourth, admission of the statement must comport with the general purpose of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice. Fifth, adequate notice of the statement must be afforded the other party to provide that party a fair opportunity to meet the evidence.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is intended that the residuary hearsay exceptions will be used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances. The committee does not intend to establish a broad license for trial judges to admit hearsay statements that do not fall within one of the other exceptions contained in Rule 803 and 804(b). The residual exceptions are not meant to authorize major judicial revisions of the hearsay rule, including its present exceptions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Manno v. McIntosh“A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant *Page 1370 was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell v. State
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.