Snell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he [lack of] opportunity to cross-examine the witness is one of the major reasons for the hearsay rule.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 665 So. 2d 1019 - WTJ v. State · 565 So. 2d 271 - Ex Parte Snell

2. “"Detective Kirkland's testimony that appellant's sister made such a statement to him qualifies as classic hearsay under both the common law and the Federal Rules of Evidence definitions: It was testimony regarding an out-of-court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 246 at 730 (3d ed. 1984); Fed.R.Evid. 801 (c). "If, as the majority asserts, 'This court has held that . . . "[h]earsay does not include statements of witnesses in the present trial subject to cross-examination *Page 273 by the party against whom the statements are offered,"' then it has done so on authority other than orthodox, common-law evidentiary principles or the Federal Rules of Evidence. There is no basis in the common law for the admission of a declarant's extrajudicial statement just because the declarant is presently available and subject to cross-examination. See Bank of the State v. McDade , 4 Port. 252, 270 (1837) ('[N]o declaration can be given in evidence, where the party who made such declaration . . . can be produced and examined as witness.'). . . . See generally 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1362 (Chadbourn rev. 1974). "Rule 801 (d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence excludes from the definition of 'hearsay' prior statements by a witness at the present trial if: "'The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 565 So. 2d 271 - Ex Parte Snell

3. “"The appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing impermissible hearsay testimony into evidence. "On direct examination by the State, Detective David Kirkland testified that he talked with the appellant regarding the injuries which he had on his body at the time of his arrest. The appellant told Kirkland that he was with his sister the night prior to the incident in question when he fell and received his injuries. Kirkland was then allowed to testify over a hearsay objection to what the sister (declarant) told him about the night her brother received his injuries. "The trial court allowed Kirkland to testify as to what the sister told him about the appellant's injuries, because the sister had been subpoenaed by the State and the defense to be a witness and would therefore be available for cross-examination. Although the prosecution chose not to call the sister to testify at trial, defense counsel did call the sister to the stand. After having her sworn in, the defense counsel chose not to ask any questions of this witness. "The appellant asserts that this admission into evidence of what the sister told Kirkland was impermissible hearsay and thus the case should be reversed."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 565 So. 2d 271 - Ex Parte Snell