Fields v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2016
6 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 Anderson v. United States · 467 So. 2d 998 - Florida Bar v. Hawkins · 460 So. 2d 926 - Bradford v. State · 336 So. 2d 416 - Webb v. State · Lombardi 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes, defines "[h]earsay" as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted " (emphasis added). Thus, "[o]ut-of-court statements constitute hearsay only when offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 219 , 94 S.Ct. 2253, 2260 , 41 L.Ed.2d 20, 28-29 (1974). "The prohibition of the hearsay rule ... does not apply to all words or utterances merely as such .... The hearsay rule excludes extra-judicial utterances only when offered for a special purpose, namely, as assertions to evidence the truth of the matter asserted. " 6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1766, at 251 (Chadbourn rev. 1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chatman v. State“[It] was offered to establish bias on the part of Detectives Johnston and Smith toward appellant. "[U]tterances which circumstantially indicate a specific state of mind causing them" do not constitute hearsay. Likewise, utterances of a witness indicating bias are admissible for impeachment purposes. They do not constitute hearsay when offered for such a purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Id. at 902 . The first district reversed because the defendant's testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. See id. at 903 . [It] was offered to establish bias on the part of Detectives Johnston and Smith toward appellant.”
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.