State v. Carrera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t would be error for the trial justice to prohibit this line of questioning [regarding a witness’s drug use at the time of an incident at issue] on relevance grounds alone.”). 11 . Ultimately, Bishop’s police statement was never admitted into evidence, and while both Antonelli and Turchetta testified at Bishop’s trial, Antonelli never testified that he hired Bishop as a condition of his parole and Tur-chetta never testified that Reine told him that Bishop”

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

2. “For purposes of discrediting a witness, drug-use evidence is admissible to the extent it shows the witness was under the influence of drugs at the time of the occurrence as to which the witness testifies or at the time of trial. It is also admissible to the extent that it shows the witness’ [sic] mind, memory, or powers of observation were affected by the habit.”

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

3. ““[Ejvidence of use of drugs is admissible to show that the witness was under the influence of those drugs at the time of the events to which he or she is testifying. Such evidence of drug use bears on the question of whether the witness was accurately perceiving the events around him or her, certainly a matter of interest to the finder of fact.” Id. at 333 .”

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