Hanlin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The problem with this court's application of the pedophile exception, sua sponte, is that it was not raised by the State before the circuit judge or in this appeal. Thus, Hanlin has not had an opportunity to address it or raise any defense to it. Though this court will go, on occasion, to the record to affirm for a different reason, typically this is done when that alternative reason was raised by a party and has been developed at the circuit court level. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 343 Ark. 343 , 37 S.W.3d 191 (2001); Heagerty v. State, 335 Ark. 520 , 983 S.W.2d 908 (1998). We have also affirmed for a different reason when the documentary evidence in the record clearly gave us a basis for doing so ( State of Washington v. Thompson, 339 Ark. 417 , 6 S.W.3d 82 (1999)), or when a statute, not argued by either party, is used by this court to affirm the trial court's determination ( Robinson v. State, 274 Ark. 312 , 624 S.W.2d 435 (1981)). This court has been resolute in stating that we will not make a party's argument for that party or raise an issue, sua sponte, unless it involves the trial court's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ilo v. State, 350 Ark., 138, 85 S.W.3d 542 (2002). Moreover, we will not consider an argument unless it has been properly developed. See Haire v. State, 340 Ark. 11 , 8 S.W.3d 468 (2000).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fudge · Jones v. Flowers

2. “Our decision not to raise the pedophile exception, sua sponte, is bolstered by the fact that we have before us no direct proof establishing that the rape of S.M. occurred in Alabama. In cases where this court has applied the pedophile exception, the other victims typically testified at trial about the defendant’s actions, or there was other direct proof of those offenses. But here, all that was presented at trial was the unsworn statement of S.M. taken by Alabama authorities and relayed to Detective Harper, which is triple hearsay. The Alabama statement is not even part of the record in this case but was simply conveyed to the jury through the testimony of Detective Harper. Sufficient proof of the rape of S.M. was, therefore, lacking.”

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