Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 211 Ill. 2d 317 - People v. Walker (2004), Ferguson v. State (2005)
42 state decisions
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 Old Chief v. United States · Singer v. United States · National Educational Support Systems, Inc. v. Autoskill, Inc. · United States v. Wacker · Merzbacher v. State
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.
““We see no meaningful difference between Old Chief, Brown, Lee, and the case before us. In all of those cases, the prosecution needed to prove only that the defendants were felons to satisfy the prior conviction element. Maryland courts, like their Federal, Florida, and Kansas counterparts, permit the exclusion of evidence if ‘its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’ Maryland Rule 5 — 403. We agree with Old Chief that the name and nature of a previous conviction, although ‘technically relevant,’ ‘addresses no detail in the definition of the prior-conviction element that would not [be] covered by the stipulation or admission [of that element].’ Therefore, we, too, are of the opinion that, when requested by the defendant in a criminal-in-possession case under Maryland Code, Article 27, Section 445, the trial court must accept a stipulation or admission that the defendant was convicted of a crime that qualifies under the criminal-in-possession statute. We hold also that, in such situations, the name or nature of the previous conviction should not be disclosed to the jury.” Carter, 374 Md. at 720-21 , 824 A.2d at 139-40 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]ith respect to issues involving the admissibility of evidence, although relevant evidence is generally admissible, Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391, 404 , 697 A.2d 432 (1997), it “should be excluded by the trial court, if the probative value of such evidence is determined to be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Andrews v. State, 372 Md. 1, 19 , 811 A.2d 282 (2002) (citing Maryland Rule 5-403). “ ‘[A] decision to admit relevant evidence over an objection that the evidence is unfairly prejudicial will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” Merzbacher, 346 Md. at 405 , 697 A.2d 432 (quoting Williams v. State, 342 Md. 724, 737 , 679 A.2d 1106 (1996), overruled on other grounds, Wengert v. State, 364 Md. 76, 89 , 771 A.2d 389 (2001)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen the defendant admits or the parties stipulate to the previous-conviction element of a charge under [P.S. § 5-133(c) ], the trial judge should inform the jury that the defendant admits that he or she has been convicted of a crime for which he or she is prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm under the law. The judge should not describe the previous conviction with any more particularity or by using the categories of crimes under [P.S. §§ 5— 133(b), (c) ] (such as “crime of violence” or “felony”).”
2 later decisions 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.