State v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2007
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 United States v. McPartlin · United States v. Stephen G. Scholle, United States of America v. Michael S. Needham · Harold Hanger v. United States of America, Gale Mixen v. United States of America, Loretta Meyer v. United States · United States v. Quinto · State v. Reiman
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.
“‘Before a prior consistent statement will qualify as nonhearsay under the rule, the proponent must demonstrate three things. First, he must show the prior consistent statement is consistent with the witness’ in-court testimony. Second, he must establish that the statement is being used to rebut an express or implied charge against the witness of recent fabrication or improper motive or influence. Finally, the proponent must demonstrate that the prior consistent statement was made prior to the time the proposed motive to falsify arose.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Moriarty · State v. Devall“Evidence that merely shows that the witness said the same thing on other occasions when his motive was the same does not have much probative force `for the simple reason that mere repetition does not imply veracity.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Devall · State v. Ager“A statement is not hearsay if the de-clarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is [[Image here]] (2) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ager
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.