476 So. 2d 26 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2019
13 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 Mars v. Hendon · Statham v. Blaine · 233 So. 2d 829 - Barlow v. State · 314 So. 2d 722 - Haralson v. State · Rouse 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both Smart and Hughes had criminal charges pending against them at the time of the trial. Although there was no evidence of a bargain, they might well have believed that their testimony in Hall's case could somehow affect the disposition of their own. It would be naive to suppose that the absence of a formal agreement with the prosecution precluded such an expectation. Smart and Hughes had an "interest in the cause" (to use the statutory language), and fuller inquiry into it should have been allowed. 476 So.2d at 28 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“defendant renews his motions previously filed ... and additionally moves for a mistrial " because of references to past charges not resulting in convictions. It appears, therefore, that this point was successfully preserved for appeal, and furnishes a basis for reversal. Because of the errors discussed above, the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P. JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Today's result is consistent with the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, effective January 1, 1986, on two counts. First, the substance of the testimony sought to be elicited from Agent Anderson "was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]nquiry into possible promises of leniency by the state and the disposition of criminal charges pending against the state's witnesses are proper areas for interrogation.”
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.