47 Cal. 2d 36 - People v. Walsh’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 1976 · most notably People v. Carter (1957), People v. Manson (1976)
36 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 15 Cal. 2d 731 - People v. Kynette · 42 Wash. 2d 799 - State v. Emmanuel · 61 Cal. App. 2d 608 - People v. Jones · 42 Cal. 2d 540 - People v. Jackson · 137 Cal. App. 1 - People v. Graves
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendants next urge that the court committed prejudicial error in admitting certain evidence claimed to be self-serving and hearsay. The contention arises out of attempts by the prosecution to rehabilitate their witnesses Stubblefield and Griffin. On cross-examination of these witnesses the defendants attempted to show that their testimony might have been fabricated and that they might have been biased and prejudiced towards the defendants. On redirect examination of the witness Stubblefield, the prosecution was allowed, over objection, to introduce certain prior consistent statements of the witness for rehabilitating his testimony. The court at that time instructed the jury that the evidence was being admitted not to prove the truth of the statements but for the limited purpose of refuting any suggestions or inferences that the witness had ‘fabricated’ his testimony at the trial or that his testimony had been actuated by ■ bias or ulterior motives. The rehabilitating evidence showed that Stubblefield had placed an endorsement on the back of the $125 check before he cashed it, reading ‘paid Vince Walsh $125.00 for fixing job 38 & Pacific, San Pedro job.’ Also evidence was introduced to the effect- that Stubblefield had, on a prior occasion, told his general contractor that he had paid the inspector $125 to clear the job. “Likewise there was an attempt on cross-examination to impeach the testimony of the prosecution’s witness Griffin and to show a recent fabrication on h”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The defendants contend that the court improperly applied the 'prior consistent statement' rule; that an express limitation upon the use of this exception to the hearsay rule is that such prior remarks must have been made 'prior to the time when the motive of interest existed' (People v. Kynette, supra, 15 Cal.2d 731, 754 ; Mason v. Vestal, 88 Cal. 396, 398 [ 26 P. 213 , 22 Am.St.Rep. 310 ]; Barkly v. Copeland, 74 Cal. 1, 5 [ 15 P. 307 , 5 Am.St.Rep. 413 ]); that it is evident that these witnesses were as much biased and prejudiced at the time they made the prior statements as they were during the trial, and that the jury was confused and misled by the instructions of the court that the evidence was admissible to refute inferences that the witnesses had 'at this trial' fabricated their testimony or that 'at this trial' their testimony was actuated by bias or ulterior motives. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that where the opposition has assailed the testimony of a witness as being of recent fabrication, an exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of evidence of statements or conduct prior to the claimed fabrication and consistent with the testimony of the witness at the trial”
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.