King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

115 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a ruling reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would not have made the same ruling. The decision under consideration has to be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 397 - Taylor v. State · Devincentz v. State

2. ““Evidence is prejudicial when it tends to have some adverse effect ... beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission....” State v. Askew, 245 Conn. 351, 362 , 716 A.2d 36, 42 (1998) (citation omitted). If the relevant witness is the defendant, the risk of unfair prejudice to her or him is high because “ ‘the jury may improperly infer that [she or he] has a history of criminal activity and therefore is not entitled to a favorable verdict.’ ” Jackson, 340 Md. at 715, 668 A.2d at 13 (quoting Ricketts, 291 Md. at 703, 436 A.2d at 908). Stated otherwise, the jury may feel that “ ‘if the defendant is wrongfully found guilty[,] no real harm is done.’ ” Id. (quoting Ricketts [v. State ], 291 Md. [701] at 703, 436 A.2d [906] at 908 [ (1981) ]); see also [State v.] Westpoint, 404 Md. [455] at 479, 947 A.2d [519] at 534 [ (2008) ] (quoting same). For a defendant wishing to tell her or his story to the jury, this translates to a very real prejudice: the defendant may be forced to choose between testifying in her or his own defense with the risk of being convicted by the jury’s misuse of impeachment evidence as propensity evidence, on one hand, and not testifying and foregoing a defense, on the other. See Westpoint, 404 Md. at 479, 947 A.2d at 534; Jackson [v. State ], 340 Md. [705] at 715, 668 A.2d [8] at 13 [ (1995) ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dallas v. State · Hannah v. State

3. “"(a) Generally. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during examination of the witness, but only if (1) the crime was an infamous crime or other crime relevant to the witness's credibility and (2) the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the witness or the objecting party. “(b) Time limit. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this Rule if a period of more than 15 years has elapsed since the date of the conviction. “(c) Other limitations. Evidence of a conviction otherwise admissible under section (a) of this Rule shall be excluded if: "(1) the conviction has been reversed or vacated. “(2) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon; or "(3) an appeal or application for leave to appeal from the judgment of conviction is pending, or the time for noting an appeal or filing an application for leave to appeal has not expired. “(d) Effect of plea of nolo contendere. For purposes of this Rule, 'conviction' includes a plea of nolo contendere followed by a sentence, whether or not the sentence is suspended.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dallas v. State · 217 Md. App. 676 - Jones v. State