State v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably State v. Shurn (1993), State v. Young (1985)
2 federal appellate · 67 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 State v. Hyde · State v. Williams · State v. Summers · State v. Foster · State v. Whipkey
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. [Although a defendant testifying in his own defense may, as a general proposition, be impeached the same as any other witness, nevertheless, a court should, on objection being made, limit certain cross-examination of a defendant where the cross-examination is technically purely collateral as to general credibility and the nature is such as to impair the defendant’s right to a fair trial on the charge brought against him. This does not apply to prior convictions of criminal offenses. ****** The extent of cross-examination rests largely in the discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere unless the discretion is abused. State v. Whipkey, 358 Mo. 563 , 215 S.W.2d 492 (1948). Cross-examining a defendant as to alleged prior acts of misconduct, particularly where details are stated and the acts are somewhat similar to the case on trial, as here, lends itself to the creation of substantial prejudice even though the answers are in the negative. The cases of 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)], ... do not require a trial court to permit all cross-examination of a defendant as to prior acts of misconduct and do not preclude an appellate court from determining that the specific questioning was erroneous and constituted prejudicial error.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams · State v. Hurst“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. Id. at 650 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams
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.