State v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The State further contends that the question was permissible to attack defendant’s credibility pursuant to State v. Foster, 349 S.W.2d 922 (Mo.1961). We are reluctantly constrained to agree. Defendant attempts to distinguish this case from State v. Foster, supra, State v. Williams, 492 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App.1973) and State v. Summers, 506 S.W.2d 67 (Mo.App.1974) on the basis that each of those cases involved cross-examination of witnesses, not the defendant. The law is clear, however, that a defendant who testifies in his own behalf may be impeached in the same manner as any other witness. State v. Williams, 525 S.W.2d 395 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Massa, 512 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App.1974); Secs. 491.050, 546.260, R.S.Mo.1969. “It appears to us that the more serious vice is the holding of State v. Foster, supra, that while arrest, charges or investigations of criminal conduct may not be inquired into, it is permissible to inquire of a witness whether he has committed a crime, even though no conviction has resulted. That holding was based upon Wendling v. Bowden, 252 Mo. 647 , 161 S.W. 774 (1913). Wendling , however, was decided at a time when it was permissible to attack a witness’ credibility by showing his general bad character and it is largely upon this basis that the holding relied upon in Foster was made. In 1935 in State v. Williams, 337 Mo. 884 , 87 S.W.2d 175 (1935), the Supreme Court reversed its prior decisions and prohibited impeachment of a witness through a showing of gener”

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

2. ““Q. Mr. Dunn, on February the 17th, 1975, did you steal property from an automobile in St. Louis County. “Mr. Taylor (defense counsel) I am going to object to that, your honor. That is completely improper. I am going to ask for a mistrial. That is an improper question about some other crime. “The Court: Overruled. “Q. (By Mr. McConnell) (Prosecutor) You may answer sir. “A. No, sir, I did not.””

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