State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An out-of-court statement made by a child under the age of ten years * ⅜ * alleging, explaining, denying, or describing any act of sexual contact or penetration performed with or on the child * * * not otherwise admissible by statute or rule of evidence, is admissible as substantive evidence if: (a) the court or person authorized to receive evidence finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement and the reliability of the person to whom the statement is made provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and (b) the child * * * either: (i) testifies at the proceedings; or (ii) is unavailable as a witness and there is corroborative evidence of the act; and (c) the proponent of the statement notifies the adverse party of the proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement sufficiently in advance of the proceeding at which the proponent intends to offer the statement into evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement. For purposes of this subdivision, an out-of-court statement includes video, audio, or other recorded statements. An unavailable witness includes an incompetent witness.”

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

2. “(a) the court ... finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement and the reliability of the person to whom the statement is made provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and (b) the child ... either: (i) testifies at the proceedings; or (ii) is unavailable as a witness and there is corroborative evidence of the act[.]”

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

3. “In a competency hearing, a child is not to be questioned about the specifics of the anticipated testimony_ Although competency has to do with the witness’ ability to remember and relate events ... this means the ability to remember and relate events generally, not the specific events which lie at the heart of the case. (Original emphasis)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Trujillo