451 So. 2d 1386 - Kaplan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2019
16 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 Davis v. Alaska · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · Commonwealth v. Joyce · 27 Or. App. 845 - State v. Jalo · Heredia v. Allstate Ins. Co.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the victim and any person other than the offender shall not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution [for sexual battery]. However, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence may prove that the defendant was not the source of the semen, pregnancy, injury, or disease; or, when consent by the victim is at issue, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence tends to establish a pattern of conduct or behavior on the part of the victim which is so similar to the conduct or behavior in the case that it is relevant to the issue of consent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Moreover, the pattern must be so distinctive and so closely resemble the defendant's version of the encounter that it tends to prove that the complainant consented to the acts charged or behaved in such a manner as to lead the defendant reasonably to believe that the complainant consented. Cf. State v. Wilhite, 58 N.C. App. 654 , 294 S.E.2d 396 (1982), cert. denied, 307 N.C. 129 , 297 S.E.2d 403 (1982), remanded for resentencing, 308 N.C. 798 , 303 S.E.2d 788 (1983). Only when these statutory requirements are met does the probative value of the evidence outweigh its prejudicial impact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he defendant's right to full and fair cross-examination, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, may limit the statute's application when evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct is relevant to show bias or motive to lie.”
2 later decisions 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.