Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 448 NW2D 32 - State v. Anderson

State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2019

20 state decisions

1001989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Osslo v. California · State v. Harless · State v. Lyons · State v. Bishop · State v. Carey

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

  1. “A prosecutor’s misconduct will not warrant a new trial unless the conduct was “so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Lyons, 210 N.W.2d 543, 549 (Iowa 1973); State v. Harless, 249 Iowa 530, 536 , 86 N.W.2d 210, 213-14 (1957), cert. denied, 357 [355] U.S. 908 [965], 78 S.Ct. 1154 [558], 2 L.Ed.2d 1158 [541] (1958). The party claiming prejudice bears the burden of establishing it. State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554, 561 (Iowa 1986). It is not the prosecutor’s misconduct which entities a defendant to a new trial, but rather any resulting prejudice which prevents the trial from being a fair one. State v. Webb, 244 N.W.2d 332, 333 (Iowa 1976). Trial courts are vested with broad authority to determine if prejudice actually results from misconduct. State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). Appellate courts will overturn a trial court’s ruling only upon finding an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion appears only when it was “exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is axiomatic that a trial court is better equipped than appellate courts can be to determine whether prejudice occurs. This is because the trial court is a firsthand observer of both the alleged misconduct and any jury reaction to it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[p]rejudice can, but usually does not, result from isolated prosecutorial misconduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.