Cavender v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Livingston v. State (1987), Hawkins v. State (1983)
39 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 Boyde v. State · White v. State · Sensabaugh v. State · Cavender v. State · Mitchell 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court rarely reversed a conviction of crime solely because an improper question was propounded to the defendant as a witness. To cause reversal, the question must be obviously harmful to the defendant. [Citations omitted]. Further, any error in asking an improper question or in admitting improper testimony may be generally cured or rendered harmless by a withdrawal of such testimony and an instruction to disregard. The exception to this general rule occurs where it appears that the question or the evidence is clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury and is of such character as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced on their minds. [Citations omitted]. Id. at 608 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vester v. State“Clearly, the prosecutor’s questions to appellant about telling his mother that he “stabbed and raped” his aunt and the assertion that his “mother has told your uncle Paul that” and inquiry if that were “the reason that he is — ” were improper. T,he prosecutor’s basis for asking same, being bottomed on hearsay several times removed, was far too tenuous to justify the questions. Id. at 603 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ladd v. State“The prosecutor’s question, coupled with his statement that he had all the evidence in the file, was clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury, and we find same to be so harmful and prejudicial to appellant that the impression produced on the minds of the jury could not be withdrawn by the court’s instruction. (Emphasis supplied). Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vester 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.