State v. Jacques’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably State v. Budis (1991), State v. Lynch (2004)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Davis v. Alaska · State v. True · Commonwealth v. Ruffen · 37 Wash. App. 122 - State v. Carver · State v. Albert
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Where the victim is a child, as in this case, the lack of sexual experience is automatically in the case without specific action by the prosecutor. A defendant therefore must be permitted to rebut the inference a jury might otherwise draw that the victim was so naive sexually that she could not have fabricated the charge.” Id. at 114 (quoting State v. Jacques, 558 A.2d 706, 708 (Me.1989)).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) In a civil or criminal case in which a person is accused of sexual misconduct toward an individual, reputation or opinion evidence of past sexual behavior of the alleged victim of such misconduct is not admissible. (b) In a criminal case in which a person is accused of sexual misconduct toward a victim the only evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual behavior that may be admitted is the following: (1) Evidence, other than reputation or opinion evidence, of sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the accused was or was not, with respect to the alleged victim, the source of semen or injury; or (2) Evidence, other than reputation or opinion evidence, of sexual behavior with the accused offered by the accused on the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual behavior with respect to which the accused is charged. (3) Evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. State · State v. Drewry“We reject, as providing insufficient protection to victims, the defendant's proposed interpretation of `sexual behavior' to apply only to a victim's `volitional sexual behavior.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Parks
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.