Benefield v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1988
12 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 Acklen's v. Hickman · Montgomery v. United States · People v. Gezzo · Tibbetts v. Sternberg · Fletcher 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may be that an inspection of the memorandum would not have assisted defendant in any way. But, as was said in Tibbetts v. Sternberg, 66 Barb. 201, 203 , supra: ‘The production of the paper might have been of no value to the defendant, but it is the principle thus sought to be established that is mischievous and dangerous. The right of a party to protection against the introduction against him of false, forged or manufactured evidence, which he is not permitted to inspect, must not be invaded a hair’s breadth. It is too valuable to be trifled with, or to permit the court to enter into any calculation as to how far it may be encroached upon without injury to the party.’ Or, as was written in Schwickert v. Levin, 76 App.Div. 373, 375 , 78 N.Y.S. 394, 395 , supra: ‘The defendant had the right to see, and to use on cross-examination, any memorandum or writing which had served to refresh the memory of the witness on his direct examination. * * * As the conversation was material, the defendant might possibly have been prejudiced by this limitation upon his cross-examination, and therefore I think that a new trial should be ordered.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In cases falling within this class [present recollection revived], the memorandum is not thereby made evidence in the cause, and its contents are not made known to the jury, unless opposing counsel call out the same on cross examination. This he may do, for the purpose of testing its sufficiency to revive a faded or fading recollection, if for no other reason.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.