Yates v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In general, a party must object to the failure to give a particular instruction promptly after the instructions are delivered, stating the grounds for the objection. Maryland Rule 4-325(e). This rule of contemporaneous objection applies even to errors of constitutional dimension. Savoy v. State , 420 Md. 232 , 241-42, 22 A.3d 845 (2011). "An appellate court, on its own initiative or on the suggestion of a party, may, however, take cognizance of any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the defendant, despite a failure to object." Maryland Rule 4-325(e). Plain error review is reserved for errors that are "compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial." Savoy , 420 Md. at 243 , 22 A.3d 845 (2011) (quoting State v. Hutchinson , 287 Md. 198 , 203, 411 A.2d 1035 (1980) ). Among the factors the Court considers are "the materiality of the error in the context in which it arose, giving due regard to whether the error was purely technical, the product of conscious design or trial tactics or the result of bald inattention." Id. This exercise of discretion to engage in plain error review is "rare." Id. at 255 , 22 A.3d 845 . "There is no fixed formula for the determination of when discretion should be exercised, and there are no bright line rules to conclude that discretion has been abused." Garrett v. State , 394 Md. 217 , 224, 905 A.2d 334 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. State , 379 Md. 704 , 713, 843 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 540 - Winston, Mayhew & Cannon v. State

2. “An appellate court, on its own initiative or on the suggestion of a party, may, however, take cognizance of any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the defendant, despite a failure to object.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 540 - Winston, Mayhew & Cannon v. State

3. “parts of one continuous transaction and [were] closely related in point of time, place, and causal connection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas