Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The record also shows that Petitioner’s trial counsel interposed a timely general objection to Officer Tucker’s opinion. Under Md. Rule 4-323(a), the Circuit Court could have directed that Petitioner’s trial counsel state the grounds for the objection. The Circuit Court, however, overruled the objection without directing that the grounds for the objection be stated. In DeLeon v. State, 407 Md. 16 , 962 A.2d 383 (2008), this Court reaffirmed the well settled principle that “party basing an appeal on a ‘general’ objection to admission of certain evidence, may argue any ground against its inadmissibility. Boyd v. State, 399 Md. 457, 475-76 , 924 A.2d 1112, 1122-23 (2007).” Id. at 24-25, 962 A.2d at 387 (emphasis in original). Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s present argument was not waived.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 191 Md. App. 319 - Wilder v. State

2. “[T]he question was unfairly prejudicial because it violated the rule against the introduction of "anticipatory rehabilitation" and/or "strawman rebuttal" evidence. Under this rule, unless the defendant's opening statement and/or cross-examination of a State's witness has "opened the door" to evidence that is relevant (and now admissible) for the purpose of either rehabilitation or rebuttal, the State is prohibited from introducing during its case-in-chief-and thereafter rebutting-such evidence in order to "bolster" that witness's testimony. Because this rule applies to expert testimony as well as to non-expert testimony, the [trial c]ourt should have prohibited the State from bolstering [an officer]'s testimony about the significance of the canine scan.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ford v. State

3. ““Any competent evidence which explains, or is a direct reply to, or a contradiction of, material evidence introduced by the accused may be produced by the prosecution in rebuttal.” Lane v. State, 226 Md. 81, 90 , 172 A.2d 400 (1961) (emphasis added). It is equally well settled that the State’s case-in-chief may include “rebuttal” evidence to which the defense has “opened the door,” either during opening statement, or through cross-examination of a State’s witness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 196 Md. App. 494 - Smith v. State