Butler v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2014
17 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 Blockburger v. United States · McDonald v. Pless · Ingram v. State · Williams v. State · Fox 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In general, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises from juror misconduct involving out-of-court communications. Currin v. State, [ 497 N.E.2d 1045, 1046 (Ind.1986) ]. Such misconduct must, however, be based on proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the extra-judicial contact or communication actually occurred and that it pertained to a matter before the jury. Id. This is a threshold inquiry that must first be established before the trial judge may consider the presumption [of prejudice] ... Onee the defendant has established to the satisfaction of the trial court that improper contact occurred and that it pertained to a matter before the jury, the presumption [of prejudice] arises and the burden shifts to the State for rebuttal. Then, upon consideration of all the evidence, the trial court must be convinced that a substantial possibility existed that the verdict was prejudiced by the improper material before a reversal and a new trial will be granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hall v. State“While a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises from jury misconduct involving out-of-court communications with unauthorized people ... such misconduct must be based on proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an extra-judicial contact or communication occurred, and that it pertained to a maiter pending before the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hall v. State“Each of the offenses included one element not included in the other a different victim. The offenses, therefore, do not merge and [the defendant] may properly be sentenced separately and consecutively for each offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ganal
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.