Halford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “What is critical to our determination of this point is that defense counsel failed to go forward and make any proffer of what Ms. Payne's testimony would have been. He only advised the trial court that he wanted to pose certain questions to her. Hence, we can only speculate about Ms. Payne's answers relating to bias and any resulting prejudice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 Ark. App. 326 - Swinford v. State · Leach v. State

2. “This court will not reverse a trial court’s admission of photographs absent an abuse of discretion. See Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608 , 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999) (citing Jones v. State, 329 Ark. 62 , 947 S.W.2d 339 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 (1997)). In Camargo v. State, 327 Ark. 631 , 940 S.W.2d 464 (1997), we discussed the admission of photographs at trial and said: Although highly deferential to the trial court’s discretion in these matters, this court has rejected a carte blanche approach to admission of photographs. Berry v. State, 290 Ark. 223, 227 , 718 S.W.2d 447, 450 (1986). We have cautioned against “promoting a general rule of admissibility that essentially allows automatic acceptance of all photographs of the victim and crime scene the prosecution can offer.” Id. at 228, 781 [718] S.W.2d at 450. This court rejects the admission of inflammatory pictures where claims of relevance are tenuous and prejudice is great, and expects the trial court to carefully weigh the probative value of photographs against their prejudicial nature. Id. at 228-29, 781 [718] S.W.2d at 450. We require the trial court to first consider whether such evidence, although relevant, creates a danger of unfair prejudice, and then to determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526 , 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980). Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. A”

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

3. “| mYour Honor, her husband was in jail, her brother had outstanding warrants for him. I am going to ask her if it isn’t true that she was hiding her brother out to keep her brother from getting arrested and ask her if that had an influence on her statement to [the police].”

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