State v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Demonstrative evidence which tends to establish any fact in issue or throw light on the controversy and aid the jury in any way in arriving at a correct verdict is admissible although' the evidence tends to arouse the prejudice of the jury. State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727, 730 [1, 2] (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Swenson, 551 S.W.2d 917, 921 [14, 15] (Mo.App. 1977). The only discretion a trial court has to deny admission of demonstrative evidence is if the evidence is both irrelevant to a material issue and also inflammatory or prejudicial.... Even if the probative value of demonstrative evidence is questionable, the evidence should be admitted and presented to the trier of fact for evaluation. State v. Pruitt, 556 S.W.2d 63 , 66 n. 1 (Mo. App.1977). The trial court has broad discretion to determine the relevancy and admissibility of demonstrative evidence. State v. Johnson, supra [ 539 S.W.2d 493 ], 515[45, 46] [Mo.App.1976]. The trial court was within its discretion in finding the challenged evidence of the flak jacket relevant to appellant’s intent and admissible. State v. Pruitt, supra, 66 [8-12]; See State v. Williams, 542 S.W.2d 3, 5 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1976); State v. Williams, 539 S.W.2d 530 (Mo.App.1976)_”

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