Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 A.2d 1098 - State v. Brown

State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
6
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. Messa (1991), State v. Beckham (1999)

40 state decisions

2001987199020002010decided

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 Clark v. City of Los Angeles · State v. Coelho · State v. Peters · State v. Concannon · State v. Carsetti

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

  1. “The right of allocution in this state is a right of constitutional dimension. See R.I. Const, art. I, § 10. A defendant in a criminal prosecution has the constitutional right to address the court before the trial justice pronounces sentence. State v. Nicoletti, 471 A.2d 613, 618 (R.I.1984); Leonardo v. State, 444 A.2d 876, 878 (R.I.1982). Brown, in this case, was not afforded the opportunity to speak before the pronouncement of sentence. The violation of that right requires this court to remand the case for resentencing. For the above-stated reasons the defendant’s conviction is affirmed but the sentence imposed is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for resentencing with direction to permit the defendant his constitutional right of allocution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining them in his favor, to have the assistance of counsel in his defense, and shall be at liberty to speak for himself; nor shall he be deprived of life, liberty, or property, unless by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the trial justice decide[s] to 'utilize a cautionary instruction[,]' * * * 'the question before us is whether [the trial justice's] instruction can be fairly said to have removed from [the jurors' minds], when weighing the evidence properly before them, the taint represented' * * *.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.