People v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 381 state decisions

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 390 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 1093(4) of the Penal Code provides that after the defendant has offered his evidence the prosecution may then offer ‘rebutting testimony only, unless the court, for good reason, in further anee of justice * * * ’ permits it to offer evidence upon its original case. In a sense all evidence that tends to establish the defendant’s guilt over his protestations of innocence rebuts the defendant’s case, but it is not all rebuttal evidence within the purpose of section 1093(4). The purpose of the restriction in that section is to assure an orderly presentation of evidence so that the trier of fact will not be confused; to prevent a party from unduly magnifying certain evidence by dramatically introducing it late in the trial; and to avoid any unfair surprise that may result when a party who thinks he has met his opponent’s case is suddenly confronted at the end of trial with an additional piece of crucial evidence. Thus proper rebuttal evidence does not include a material part of the case in the prosecution’s possession that tends to establish the defendant’s commission of the crime. It is restricted to evidence made necessary by the defendant’s case in the sense that he has introduced new evidence or made assertions that were not implicit in his denial of guilt. See People v. Byrd, 42 Cal.2d 200, 211-212 , 266 P.2d 505 , certiorari denied 348 U.S. 848 , 75 S.Ct. 73 , 99 L.Ed. 668 ; People v. Nye, 38 Cal.2d 34, 38-39 , 237 P.2d 1 ; People v. Avery, 35 Cal.2d 487, 491 , 218 ”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 45 Cal. 3d 1189 - People v. Bunyard · State v. Olsen

2. ““ ‘If the principal effect of demonstrative evidence such as photographs is to arouse the passion of the jury and inflame them against the defendant because of the horror of the crime, the evidence must of course, be excluded. * * * On the other hand, if the evidence has probative value with respect to a fact in issue that outweighs the danger of prejudice to the defendant, the evidence is admissible even if it is gruesome and may incidently arouse the passions of the jury.’ ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Master v. State · Vierrether v. State

3. ““When the husband is absent from the home, it is the wife who controls the premises, the ordinary household property, the automobile, and with her husband’s tacit consent determines who shall and who shall not enter the house on business or pleasure and what property they may take away with them. When the usual amicable relations exist between husband and wife and the property seized is of a kind over which the wife normally exercises as much control as the husband, it is reasonable to conclude that she is in a position to consent to a search and seizure of the property in their home.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Evans · Commonwealth v. Cabey