Chamberlain v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 13 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Also when asked by defense counsel if there was any question in her mind that her husband had carnal knowledge of the daughter, she replied unequivocally, ‘He absolutely did’. “Section 1-142, W.S.1957, reads as follows: “ ‘In no case shall the husband or wife be a witness against the other, except in criminal proceedings for a crime committed by one against the other, or in a civil action or proceeding by one or against the other, or an action brought by the husband for criminal conversation with or seduction of his wife, or in an action brought by either husband or wife for the alienation of the other’s affections; but they may in all civil and criminal cases be witnesses for each other the same as though the marital relation did not exist.’ “The only other statute we have which touches the subject is found in § 1-139, W.S.1957, formerly § 3-2602, W.C.S.1945, the applicable portion of which is as follows: “ ‘The following persons shall not testify in certain respects: ;f: % >fí % >¡í “ ‘3. Husband or wife, except as provided in section 3681 [§ 1-142], * * *’ “The wording of the governing statute, like that of similar statutes in many other jurisdictions, needs interpretation. Legalistically speaking, a crime is never ‘committed by one against the other’. Crimes are committed against the state. Offenses against an individual are civil wrongs. See Wilkinson v. People, 86 Colo. 406 , 282 P. 257 ; Dill v. People, 19 Colo. 469 , 36 P. 229 , 41 Am. St.Rep. 254. With ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Crow · Matter of JH

2. “"Each of the states, territories and possessions of our country, as well as the Philippine Islands, now has statutes relating to competency of a spouse to testify against the other in criminal cases, but they are not uniform. In attempting some general classification of these laws, we find statutes of several jurisdictions making the spouse competent, but not compellable, to testify; a few states where they may be compelled to testify; and a large majority where such testimony is permissible when the accused is charged with violence or crime against the other spouse. Within the last group are some states which allow the testimony when the crime, violence or injury is committed against a minor child of the witness. It also appears that about one-fourth of the jurisdictions have statutes which read substantially the same as our own statute. See 2 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., § 488 and 1957 Supp. "... "In 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 101, p. 504, it is said: "`Under statutory exceptions permitting husband or wife to testify against the other in a prosecution for a crime committed by one against the other, the right of one spouse to testify against the other exists in cases of violence against the person, and has by some authorities been limited to such offenses, such authorities construing statutes of this character as merely declaratory of the common law, although other authorities take the view that under such statutory exception a wife is competent to testify against her husband in ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matter of JH · In re J.H.

3. “Any rule that impedes the discovery of truth in a court of law impedes as well the doing of justice. When such a rule is the product of a conceptualism long ago discarded, is universally criticized by scholars, and has been qualified or abandoned in many jurisdictions, it should receive the most careful serutiny. Surely "reason and experience" require that we do more than indulge in mere assumptions, perhaps naive assumptions, as to the importance of this ancient rule to the interests of domestic tranquility.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 339 So. 2d 1366 - Merritt v. State · Rogers v. State