State v. Fields’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 28 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It has long been the rule in this state that evidence obtained by means of an unlawful search and seizure by police officers is not admissible against the person searched, or whose property is searched, where timely objection to the use of such evidence is made. State v. Cuezze, Mo., 249 S.W.2d 373 [1952]; State v. Holt, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 761 [1967], The procedural rules of this state, ... require that the contention of an unlawful search and seizure be made by motion to suppress the evidence in advance of trial. State v. O’Brien, Mo., 252 S.W.2d 357 [1952], certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 929 , 73 S.Ct. 790 , 97 L.Ed. 1359 ; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737 [1956]; State v. Holt, supra. The validity of a search and the admissibility in evidence of the fruits of that search present issues collateral to the issue of guilt which are to be tried independently, State v. Dalton, Mo., 23 S.W.2d 1 [1929], and “Not only must defendant file a motion to suppress the controverted evidence, but he has the burden of presenting evidence to sustain his contentions.” State v. Holt, supra, 415 S.W.2d at p. 764 ; Supreme Court Rule 33.03(a)(5), V.A.M.R.; State v. Jonas, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 3 [1953]. He must also keep the question alive by timely objection, State v. Tunnell, 302 Mo. 433 , 259 S.W. 128 [banc 1924]; State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681 , 162 S.W.2d 878 [1942], and by preservation of the issue in a motion for new trial. State v. Lord, supra. The only exception under our procedural rule is wher”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hardiman · State v. Henderson

2. “The procedural rules of this state, with an exception not here material, require that the contention of an unlawful search and seizure be made by motion to suppress the evidence in advance of trial. State v. O'Brien, Mo., 252 S.W.2d 357 , certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 929 , 73 S.Ct. 790 , 97 L.Ed. 1359 ; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737 ; State v. Holt, [Mo., 415 S.W.2d 761 ] supra. The validity of a search and the admissibility in evidence of the fruits of that search present issues collateral to the issue of guilt which are to be tried independently, State v. Dalton, Mo., 23 S.W.2d 1 , and `Not only must defendant file a motion to suppress the controverted evidence, but he has the burden of presenting evidence to sustain his contentions.' State v. Holt, supra, 415 S.W.2d at p. 764 ; Supreme Court Rule 33.03(a) (5), V.A. M.R.; State v. Jonas, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 3 . He must also keep the question alive by timely objection, State v. Tunnell, 302 Mo. 433 , 259 S.W. 128 ; State v. Hepperman, 349 Mo. 681 , 162 S.W.2d 878 , and by preservation of the issue in a motion for new trial. State v. Lord, supra. The only exception under our procedural rule is where the defendant `had no reason to anticipate the evidence would be introduced and was surprised.' State v. O'Brien, supra, 252 S.W.2d at p. 359 .”

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