State v. Pittman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under Rule 3, the right of appeal by the State is limited. This court has consistently held that there is a significant difference between appeals brought by criminal defendants and those brought on behalf of the State. State v. Williams, 348 Ark. 585 , 75 S.W.3d 684 (2002); State v. Pruitt, 347 Ark. 355 , 64 S.W.3d 255 (2002). The former is a matter of right, whereas the latter is neither a matter of right, nor derived from the Constitution, but rather is only ^granted pursuant to the confines of Rule 3. Id. We accept appeals by the State when our holding would be important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. State v. Warren, 345 Ark. 508 , 49 S.W.3d 103 (2001); State v. Thompson, 343 Ark. 135 , 34 S.W.3d 33 (2000); State v. Stephenson, 330 Ark. 594 , 955 S.W.2d 518 (1997). As a matter of practice, this court has only taken appeals “which are narrow in scope and involve the interpretation of law.” Id. at 595 , 955 S.W.2d at 519 (quoting State v. Banks, 322 Ark. 344, 345 , 909 S.W.2d 634, 635 (1995)). We do not permit State appeals merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court erred. Id. Thus, where an appeal does riot present an issue of interpretation of the criminal rules with widespread ramifications, this court has held that such an appeal does not involve the correct and uniform administration of the law. Id. Similarly, where the resolution of the issue on appeal turns on the facts unique to the case or involves a mixed question of law a”

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