Flowers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

96 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A statement made while in custody is presumptively involuntary, and the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a custodial statement was given voluntarily and was knowingly, and intelligently, made. Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193 , 208 S.W.3d 113 (2006). In order to determine whether a waiver of Miranda rights is voluntary, this court looks to see if the confession was the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Id. In order to make this determination, this court reviews the totality of the circumstances surrounding the waiver including the age, education, and intelligence of the accused; the lack of advice as to his constitutional rights; the length of the detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; the use of mental or.physical punishment; and statements made by the interrogating officers and the vulnerability of the defendant.' Id. The fact that the defendant is not a stranger to the criminal-justice system is a factor to be considered in determining whether a custodial statement was voluntarily made. Sweet v. State, 2011 Ark. 20 , 370 S.W.3d 510 . This court will reverse a circuit court’s ruling on this issue only if it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses who testify at a suppression hearing about the; circumstances surrounding an appellant’s custodial confession is for the trial judge to determine, and ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Ark. App. 457 - Garcia v. State

2. “Rule 702 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence entitled "Testimony of Experts" reads: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. This court has held that if some reasonable basis exists demonstrating that the witness has knowledge of the subject beyond that of ordinary knowledge, the evidence is admissible as expert testimony. Brunson v. State, 349 Ark. 300 , 79 S.W.3d 304 (2002). Whether a witness qualifies as an expert in a particular field is a matter within the trial court's discretion, and we will not reverse such a decision absent an abuse of that discretion. Jackson v. State, 359 Ark. 297 , 197 S.W.3d 468 (2004); Brunson, 349 Ark. 300 , 79 S.W.3d 304 .”

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

3. “(1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make aprimafacie case of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must come forward with a race-neutral explanation; and (3) the trial court must decide whether the opponent has proven purposeful racial discrimination.”

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