State v. Greer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 134 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness's character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime as provided in Evid. R. 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if clearly probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness * * * concerning the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness * * *.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Peppeard, 2008-P-0058 (4-3-2009) · State v. Mitchell, Ct2006-0090 (10-9-2007)

2. “Appellant also asserts in proposition of law number fifteen that a victim impact statement was utilized in the trial court’s sentencing considerations in violation of the recent pronouncement contained in Booth v. Maryland (1987), 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 . 5 This proposition of law was neither briefed nor argued before the court of appeals. It is accordingly waived and our consideration thereof is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. By way of commentary only, we note that the report at issue was prepared. However, at no time was it ever entered into evidence. It was not given to the jury or specifically commented upon in their presence. The opinion of the trial court is completely devoid of any reference to such report. Accordingly, there has been no showing that the prepared victim impact statement played any part in the sentencing deliberations of either judge or jury. State v. Post (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 380 , 383, 513 N.E.2d 754 , 758. Thus, the trial court presumably considered only that evidence which was relevant, probative and competent on the issue. Id., at 384, 513 N.E.2d at 759 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Greer v. Mitchell

3. “Factors introduced by appellant for mitigation purposes were that appellant was raised in an environment of poverty, his parents died when he was quite young, his father was killed in front of him, he has a relatively low I.Q. and is uneducated, he has a history of alcoholism and unemployment, his conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and appellant testified that he is innocent. Obviously, such evidence is relevant under factor number seven and is also part of the history, character and background of the offender. Thus, none of the first six mitigating factors has any relevance. We find such evidence completely overshadowed by the demonstrated aggravating circumstance. Moreover, we note that nothing in appellant’s history or background indicates that the sentences are other than appropriate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Greer v. Mitchell