State v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Testimony showing a statement of present intention or an existing state of mind of the deceased was described by the Delaware Supreme Court in Derrickson v. State, Del.Supr., 321 A.2d 497 (1974), as “a universally recognized exception to the hearsay rule.” The Court cited with approval the case of State v. Long, Del.Ct.O. & T. [ 32 Del. 380 ] 123 A. 350 (1923), which announced five requirements as the necessary foundation for the admission of such evidence: 1. The statement must be relevant and material; 2. It must relate to an existing state of mind when made; 3. It must be made in a natural manner; 4. It must be made under circumstances dispelling suspicion; 1 5. It must contain no suggestion of sinister motives. 2 The defendant in Derrickson had contested the admission of Frank Leister’s testimony. Leister had employed the vic tim of the homicide, Wayne McNeal, at Leister’s service station where McNeal had worked for several months prior to his death. Shortly before Leister had last seen McNeal, the deceased had asked Leister for time off so that he could accompany the defendant to Delaware to change registration tags on a car. The Supreme Court concluded that the testimony was competent to show McNeal’s present purpose or intention when the statement was made. The Court found that the statement was properly admitted, the five foundational requirements having been met.”

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

2. “The rule then to be distilled from the better reasoned decisions is that a victim’s extra-judicial declarations of fear of the defendant are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule with a limiting instruction only if there is a manifest need for such evidence, i.e., if it is relevant to a material issue in the case. Where there is a substantial likelihood of prejudice to the defendant’s case in the admission of such testimony, it is inadmissible if it bears only a remote or artificial relationship to the legal or factual issues raised in the case. Even where there is substantial relevance, the additional factual matters in the statement may simply be too explosive to be contained by the limiting instruction, in which case exclusion of the testimony is also necessitated. The trial judge must undertake the familiar balancing process in which the relative degrees of relevance and prejudice are weighed and determined....”

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

3. “1. This evidence may only be admitted in rebuttal after evidence of accident, self-defense, suicide or extreme emotional distress has been presented by the defense; 2. It may only then be admitted if the trial court makes, upon balance, a determination on the record that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see D.R.E. 403; 3. The deceased’s statement when made, must not have been too remote in time from the charged offense; and 4. Because such evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, a limiting instruction should be given contemporaneously with the admission of such evidence and as part of the jury instructions at the close of the case, see D.R.E. 105.”

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