Storey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the State attempted to refute the opinion of the defendant’s psychologist by attacking the information upon which it was based as well as its conclusion. The evidence of the facts of the 1959 assault conviction tended to refute the psychologist’s opinion regarding the defendant’s reduced capacity to handle stress and fear following the 1968 brain embolism and resulting organic brain dis-' order. Evidence of pre-existing behavioral deficiencies is especially relevant in this case because the psychologist only reviewed the defendant’s medical history since 1968. In this regard, the evidence was not offered as proof of the defendant’s guilt of the murder and thus was not erroneously admitted for that reason.... The questioning of the defendant about information he provided the psychologist was also relevant to show the basis upon which the opinion was formed. The jury was entitled to know the basis upon which it was formed to assist them in assessing the weight it should be accorded [citation omitted]. The psychologist stated that he did consider the defendant’s assault conviction, although he discounted its importance in his decision-making. The defendant’s answers indicate that he may have provided the psychologist with an incomplete history of his violent acts, which indicated behavioral deficiencies. In essence, the State’s principal purpose was to attack the reliability of the psychologist’s opinion, not to impeach the defendant by improper means.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Manuilov

2. “[wlhere the defendant injects an irrelevant matter into the trial, he cannot complain about the admission of extrinsic evidence that responds to his irrelevant evidence.”

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

3. “The use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm permits the jury to infer the defendant's knowledge that he was killing another.”

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