57 Md. App. 539 - Braxton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2010
23 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 Machibroda v. United States · Hall v. State · Watson v. State · Von Lusch v. State · Bowers 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]e note that at no time did defense counsel advise the court that he was offering the Stevie Williams testimony not for the truth of appellant’s response but in order to impeach the testimony of Lindsay Blackwell. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 273 Md. 152, 161 , 328 A.2d 274 (1974). Neither did defense counsel suggest to the court that the alleged denial was being offered as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule or under the doctrine of verbal completeness.... Therefore, appellant’s present theory of admissibility was neither tried nor decided by the trial judge and we ought not consider it. See Brown v. State, 1 Md.App. 571, 576 , 232 A.2d 261 , cert. denied, 248 Md. 733 (1967); Maryland Rule 1085. One of the principal purposes of this rule is to require counsel to bring the position of their clients to the attention of the lower court at the trial, so that the trial court can pass upon and possibly avoid or correct any errors in the proceedings.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Accordingly, we hold that refusal to permit an answer to a question which on its face called for hearsay (a self-serving declaration) is not error where trial counsel fails to show that the purpose of the question is to elicit non-hearsay or evidence which would be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.