Arnold v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2009
17 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 Williams v. Rhodes · Ashton v. Anderson · Poindexter v. State · Reid v. State · Beasley 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to cross-examine one of the victims about drugs he may have purchased from Jeffery Murray at an earlier time and in refusing to allow him to question two witnesses as to whether they knew they could be charged with possession of drugs. Defendant argues that since drugs were found in Murray's apartment at the time of the crime and other wit nesses testified about the presence of drugs, the issue was not a collateral matter and should have been available for impeachment purposes. It has long been settled in this state that a witness cannot be impeached by proof of particular extraneous acts of misconduct which are not reduced to convictions. Jarvis v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 1 ; Chambers v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 357 , 392 N.E.2d 1156 Swan v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 317 , 375 N.E.2d 198 . Furthermore, only certain convie-tions will be allowed to be introduced for impeachment purposes. Daniels v. State, (1980) [ 274 Ind. 29 ] Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1244 ; Ashton v. Anderson, (1972) 258 Ind. 51 , 279 N.E.2d 210 . The testimony in this case which was excluded did not concern specific convictions and there was no error in its exclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shannon v. State“He ignores that equal protection rights apply only to those within the same class. The mandate for equal protection of the law does not prevent different treatment of persons in different classifications, if the classifications are reasonable and serve a legitimate purpose. The granting of immunity is somewhat analogous to plea-bargaining in that the State must often use such means with reluctant, but essential, witnesses. The State alone has the responsibility of prosecuting crimes. To meet that responsibility, the State, not the defendant, must have the authority to grant immunity. There is no unlawful denial of equal protection here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fancher v. State“he was denied due process in that the state could grant immunity to witnesses but he could not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fancher 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.