Patrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
March 2003
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Griffin v. California · Beasley v. State · Flowers v. State · Bricker v. State · Woodrum v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court should not single out a particular witness or group of witnesses in an instruction. Beasley v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 396 , 370 N.E.2d 360 . Even if we would assume for the sake of argument that appellant’s Tendered Instruction No. 1 could properly have been given, it was not necessary to do so when the trial court had covered the subject matter by another instruction. Bricker v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 186 , 341 N.E.2d 502 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilkening v. State“This standard is measured by the probable persuasive effect the alleged misconduct had on the jury's decision and whether there were repeated instances of misconduct which would evidence a deliberate attempt to improperly prejudice the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Potter 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.