Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 470 N.E.2d 701 - Connell v. State

Connell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Hansford v. State (1986), Kindred v. State (1988)

26 state decisions

1801984199020002010decided

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 Pirtle v. State · Kiefer v. State · Stowers v. State · Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. v. FIELDS · Griffin 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Hearsay evidence is testimony in Court or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, such statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of the matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter." McCormick, Evidence, § 225 (1954). Indianapolis, Inc. v. Fields (1970), 254 Ind. 219 , 259 N.E.2d 651 , 673. The rule applies to written as well as oral statements, and relates to the compentency of matter and not its relevance. It ".. excludes extrajudicial utterances only when offered for a special purpose, namely, as assertions to the truth of the matter asserted." 6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1766 (8d ed. 1940). Indianapolis Newspapers, Ind. v. Fields, Ind., supra [, 259 N.E.2d] at 674. The rule applies to statements of fact which can be considered true or false. If the questioned utterance is offered to prove the fact of the utterance and not offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted, then there is no hearsay. The fact of the utterance may safely rest for its evidentiary value upon the credibility of any witness who may have heard or read it and testifies to it in court. The rule guards against fact asserted in an utterance because it rests for its evidentiary value, not upon the eredibility of any witness who may have heard it, but upon the actual asserter who is absent from the trial. Hearsay evidence may nevertheless be admissible at trial under exceptions, the basis for which relates to the existen”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Hearsay evidence is testimony in court or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, such statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of the matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter." McCormick, Evidence, § 225 (1954).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““There is good and sound cause upon which to predicate an exception to the hearsay rule to permit the impeachment use of a television schedule to persuade a trier of fact what program was or was not actually broadcast. First: the viewing of television programs is a most common experience, yet there is a superficial simplicity to the process of disproving a particular broadcast by objective and unbiased proof. Second: the television listing is publicly announced and widely disseminated on a daily or weekly basis. Third: there is the widest of successful public reliance on the accuracy of listings. Fourth: their accuracy is dictated by the business interest of newspapers and television stations. Fifth: they are not intended to create evidence for court. Sixth: they are readily available and inexpensive. The argument against the exception would be that the listings are periodically changed and are inaccurate. In our judgment this factor is no greater than is present upon consideration of market reports published in newspapers, business entries, and public records. We now hold that the law of evidence reflect an exception to the hearsay rule warranting the introduction of television listings and schedules published in newspapers and periodicals on a regular basis and intended to be relied upon by the public and shown to the satisfaction of the court to be authentic.” Id. at 706-07 .”
    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.