Currin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2015
18 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 Patterson v. New York · Rideout v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Loyd v. State · Holloway v. Florida
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Defendant contends that the extrajudicial contact was presumptively prejudicial, and that the State failed to sufficiently rebut that presumption. While a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises from juror misconduct involving out-of-court communications with unauthorized persons, Conrad v. Tomlinson (1972), 258 Ind. 115 , 279 N.E.2d 546 , such misconduct must be based on proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an extra-judicial contact or communication occurred, and that it pertained to a matter pending before the jury. See, Fox v. State (1984), Ind., 457 N.E.2d 1088 ; Oldham v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 301, 304-305 , 231 N.E.2d 791, 793 ; Brown v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 604, 607 , 201 N.E.2d 281, 283 ; Myers v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 641, 646 , 168 N.E.2d 220, 223 ; Barker v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 271, 278 , 150 N.E.2d 680, 683-684 ; York v. State (1978), 177 Ind.App. 568 , 380 N.E.2d 1255 . Where there is a factual conflict regarding the existence or content of extra-judicial juror contact, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the evidence presented showed any irregularity. Reed v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 1248 ." Id. at 1046.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hall v. State · Fox v. State
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.