State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While an adverse party is privileged under statute to ask a witness about the nature of prior criminal convictions, whether felony or misdemeanor, (§ 491.050 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.), questions about acts of misconduct not resulting in conviction have been held improper. See State v. Sanders, supra, and Holden v. Berberich, 351 Mo. 995 , 174 S.W.2d 791 , 149 A.L.R. 929 , (question about indictment and charge for driving while intoxicated ruled improper); and Hoffman v. Graber, Mo.App., 153 S.W.2d 817 , (question about charge of disturbing the peace held improper). A similar restriction has been applied to juvenile offenses. State v. Tolias, Mo., 326 S.W.2d 329 . Courts have only found exceptions to this rule in cases where the interrogation is necessary to show the bias or motive of a prosecution witness; for example, that an indictment or charge has been dropped in return for desired testimony. See 20 ALR 2d 1421 , 1425.”

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

2. “[I]n * * * State v. Sanders, Mo., 360 S.W.2d 722 , 725 * * * the Court said that `* * * a witness' credibility may not be attacked by showing a mere arrest, investigation, or criminal charge which has not resulted in a conviction * * *'.”

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

3. ““[T]he scope of cross-examination and the determination of which matters may bear on a witness’ credibility are largely within the discretion of the trial court.””

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