Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 Md. App. 101 - Deloso v. State

37 Md. App. 101 - Deloso v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2000

21 state decisions

1201977198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Ingraham v. Wright · Ball v. United States · United States v. Ewell · United States v. Tateo · Bryan v. United States

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

  1. “The utterance need not be contemporaneous or simultaneous with the principal act. While it may be subsequent to it, it must be established that the exciting influence has not lost its sway or been dissipated by meditation. But the crucial factor is not so much the lapse of time or change of location but the continuance of a situation which insures that what is said is, in fact, a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence, rather than an independent, preconceived expression of the speaker’s will.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Implicit in this consideration, however, is the requirement that the offerer of the hearsay statements provide the foundation upon which he asserts admissibility. See Harnish, supra, 9 Md.App. at 549-551 [ 266 A.2d 364 ]; McCormick, Evidence § 297 (2d ed.). As we have already pointed out, the State’s entire case rested upon hearsay, but the State laid no foundation showing circumstantial probability of trustworthiness. Nor was there evidence of the relative time sequences between the alleged incidents of abuse and Jenny Jo’s statements to the various witnesses. Nothing in the evidence indicated that Jenny Jo ‘was still emotionally engulfed by the situation,’ either inferentially from time and circumstances, or actually from the witnesses’ observations.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Jenny Jo’s conduct and conversation appeared from the telling to have been quite casual—almost a ‘show and tell’ depiction. Neither Moore, Jackson, nor any other case reviewed by this Court permits the admission of the hearsay of a child simply by virtue of its tender years. The element of trustworthiness is generally found in the spontaneity of the exclamation, and that is totally lacking here.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.