State v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably James David Carter v. Ricky Bell, Warden Paul Summers, Attorney General (2000), State v. Brown (1992)
2 federal appellate · 100 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 State v. Fowler · Brooks v. State · State v. Sorrell · 51 Ala. App. 148 - Headley v. State · State v. Bock
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime may be admitted if the following procedures and conditions are satisfied: ⅜ ‡ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜: ⅜ (2) The crime must be punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted or, if not so punishable, the crime must have involved dishonesty or false statement. (3) If the witness to be impeached is the accused in a criminal prosecution, the State must give the accused reasonable written notice of the impeaching conviction before trial, and the court upon request must determine that the conviction’s probative value on credibility outweighs its unfair prejudicial effect on the substantive issues. The court may rule on the admissibility of such proof prior to the trial but in any event shall rule prior to the testimony of the accused. If the court makes a final determination that such proof is admissible for impeachment purposes, the accused need not actually testify at the trial to later challenge the propriety of the determination.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Patton · Wilson v. State““(W)here a witness is sought to be cross-examined as to specific instances of conduct as contemplated by Rule 608(b), the Court shall conduct a jury-out hearing for the purpose of determining that the probative value of such evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.” 541 S.W.2d at 390 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Patton · State v. Elliott““Inquiry.... ‘[Must] be limited to the fact of a former conviction and of what crime, with the object only of affecting the credibility of the witness, not prejudicing the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the defendant witness of the crime for which he is on trial.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Elliott
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.