42 Md. App. 130 - Burrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. The credibility of a witness is always a relevant issue in any case, civil or criminal; 2. When a defendant in a criminal case elects to testify in his own defense, he subjects himself to the same rules of cross-examination that govern other witnesses; 3. Evidence of a witness’ prior conviction of an infamous crime is always admissible to impeach his credibility regardless of the age of that conviction. Md. Code (1974, 1984 Repl.Vol.), § 10-905 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article; 4. The admissibility of evidence of a witness’ prior conviction of a non-infamous crime is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge who must consider the nature of the crime and length of time since it occurred in determining the relevance of the conviction to the witness’ credibility. 4”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 68 Md. App. 282 - Matthews v. State · 68 Md. App. 168 - Watson v. State

2. “[The time requirement] is somewhat akin to the law of gravity: the farther away one is from the mass, the less is its gravitational pull or influence. But, like another aspect of the law of gravity—the larger the mass, the stronger is its pull at any given distance—so it is that the more enormous the earlier crime (i.e., the more it embodies and therefore exudes dishonesty), the more likely will be its relevance, and thus its admissibility, even after the elapse of long intervals. With respect to other than infamous crimes, therefore, admissibility for impeachment purposes seems to be a function of a more or less direct ratio between the degree of dishonesty inherent in the earlier crime and the time elapsed since its commission. The greater the degree of dishonesty inherent in the earlier crime, the longer is the period of time since its commission that the conviction remains relevant, and therefore admissible, for impeachment purposes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 73 Md. App. 135 - Bane v. State

3. “"It has been held by this Court that evidence of the accused’s previous conviction of crime need not be restricted to infamous crimes or those involving moral turpitude, provided the violation of law may have some tendency to show that the person charged is not to be believed under oath. ... In such instances the exercise of discretion by the trial judge will not be interfered with on appeal unless the fact of the prior conviction is clearly irrelevant... . Where the conviction was for a crime not infamous, the length of time since it occurred considered with the nature of the crime has been deemed pertinent in citing relevancy. .. . We think that where the prior conviction was for an infamous crime, evidence of it is admissible without reference to the time of its commission, for such bearing and weight on credibility as the trier of fact may give it under the circumstances.” [Citations omitted].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 48 Md. App. 205 - Kirby v. State