State v. McIntyre’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. Olander (1998), Commonwealth v. Adjutant (2005)
26 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 104 Ill. 2d 194 - People v. Lynch · State v. Thiel · State v. Micko · Carrick v. McFadden · United States v. Greschner
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.
“(a) Character Evidence Generally. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: * * * * (2) Character of Victim. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Olander · State v. Gagnon“The second sentence of this rule allows inquiry into specific instances of conduct during cross-examination, but it must be read in conjunction with the first sentence which allows proof of character only through reputation or opinion testimony. Maes v. Scholl, 375 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 1985). A witness, who on direct examination has given reputation or opinion testimony about the character of a person, can be asked about specific instances of conduct while being cross-examined. However, inquiry of specific instances cannot be made during cross-examination unless the subject has been raised on direct examination through opinion or reputation testimony. Maes v. Scholl, supra; Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 405, 28 U.S.C.A., Advisory Committee Notes. The rule, by allowing cross-examination about specific instances only after character has been raised on direct, comports with the general rule that the scope of cross-examination is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination (and matters affecting credibility of the witness). Rule 611(b), N.D.R.Ev.; State v. Buckley, 325 N.W.2d 169 (N.D.1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Olander“Evidence has been presented that the defendant [set out the defense]. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as an additional element of the offense charged, that the defendant was not [set out the defense]. The defendant does not have the burden of proof as to this defense. If the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not [set out defense], the defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Olander
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.