449 So. 2d 766 - Winters v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 604 So. 2d 280 - Fleming v. State (1992), 551 So. 2d 188 - Benson v. State (1989)
52 state decisions
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 381 So. 2d 983 - Jones v. State · 380 So. 2d 1276 - Gathright v. State · 351 So. 2d 1342 - Gray v. State · 428 So. 2d 1361 - Pearson v. State · 421 So. 2d 1025 - Oates v. State
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“unless convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that, to allow it to stand, would be to sanction an unconscionable injustice.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hanner v. State · Harris v. State“[W]here the defense attorney inquires into a subject on cross-examination of the state's witness, the prosecutor on rebuttal is certainly entitled to elaborate on the matter. For example, in Jefferson v. State, 386 So.2d 200 (Miss.1980), the defendant's attorney on cross-examination asked the prosecutrix in a rape case regarding a prior rape the defendant had allegedly committed. On redirect, the prosecuting attorney developed the details of the prior incident. On appeal, we held that evidence of the prior rape, though otherwise inadmissible, could properly be presented by the prosecution where the defendant has opened the door. See Simpson v. State, 366 So.2d 1085, 1086 (Miss.1979); Johnson v. State, 260 So.2d 436, 438 (Miss. 1972). When allowing this sort of testimony, however, the trial judge should be careful to assure that the prosecution does not go beyond the scope of the "invitation" extended by defense counsel. Based upon our careful review of the transcript in this regard, we find that the invitation was not exceeded. Winters v. State, 449 So.2d 766, 770-71 (Miss.1984).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]roof of a character trait . . . may not be made by proof of specific past actions. The defendant is limited to offering testimony as to general reputation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bennett v. State
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.