State v. Tracy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[F]irst the declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment; and second, the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied on by a physician in treatment or diagnosis.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tornquist · State of Iowa v. Trent D. Smith

2. “We note that the admission of [the expert's] testimony concerning the truthfulness of [the complainant’s] testimony is in violation of our holding in State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91, 97-98 (Iowa 1986). However, we choose not to rest our conclusions in the present case upon the Myers violation alone. [[Image here]] The State’s suggestion that Tracy's trial counsel may have intentionally allowed [the expert] to testify so as to cross-examine him regarding a seemingly inconsistent statement in his report ... is simply not tenable. The collective prejudicial impact of [the expert’s] testimony in conjunction with that given by the others clearly outweighs any favorable testimony that could reasonably have been anticipated in the course of [the expert’s] cross-examination. Finally, we conclude that any argument that defense counsel failed to object so as to avoid calling the jury’s attention to [the expert’s] unfavorable testimony is unrea sonable in light of our position that the mere admission of such evidence is reversible error; this proposition applies with equal force to the hearsay testimony given_ In short, we find that Tracy’s counsel failed to perform an essential duty in failing to make a timely objection to the testimony indicated above.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State

3. “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: [[Image here]] (24) Other Exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can produce through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rojas