State v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 154 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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he general rule in Missouri is that extrajudicial statements against penal interest are not admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Where due process requires, however, such statements will be admitted if (1) the de-clarant is unavailable as a witness; (2) the statements, if true, would exonerate the defendant; and (3) the statements carry substantial indicia of reliability. The United States Supreme Court in Chambers recognized three such indicia of reliability, as have Missouri courts, namely, (1) the statement must be self-incriminatory and undeniably against self-interest; (2) the statement must be made spontaneously to a close acquaintance shortly after the crime; and (3) the statement must be corroborated by other admissible evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Hutchison · State v. Bisher

2. “A person is responsible for his own conduct and he is responsible for the conduct of other persons in committing an offense if he acts with them for the purpose of committing that offense [or any other offense committed by the other persons in pursuance of the common purpose or as a natural and probable consequence thereof,] or if, for the purpose of committing that offense [or any other offense committed by the other persons in pursuance of the common purpose or as a natural and probable consequence thereof, ] he aids or encourages the other persons in committing it. As to Count II, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that on August 19, 1983, in the City St. Louis, Byron Jones attempted to kill or cause serious physical injury to Joseph Crawford by shooting him, then you are instructed that the offense of assault in the first degree had occurred, and if you further find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: Second, that with the purpose of promoting of [sic] furthering the commission of robbery in the first degree, the defendant acted together with or aided Byron Jones and Lavelle Nylon in committing that offense, [and the offense of assault in the first degree submitted to you in the foregoing paragraph was committed in the pursuance of the common purpose of robbery in the first degree as a natural and probable consequence thereof ] 2 then you will find the defendant guilty under Count II of assault in the first deg”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Evans

3. “Defendant’s assertions respecting defense counsels’ refusal to call his proposed witnesses must also fail. As stated in Eldridge v. State, [ 592 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Mo. banc 1979)], ‘If an attorney believes that the testimony of an alibi witness would not unqualifiedly support his client’s position, it is a matter of trial strategy not to call him to the stand.... An assertion against counsel’s choice of trial strategy with respect to calling or not calling certain witnesses does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.’ (citations omitted). See, American Bar Association’s Standards For Criminal Justice, The Defense Function, Standard 4-5.2 (2 ed. 1980). This rule particularly holds where, as here, the attorneys during investigation contacted defendant’s potential witnesses, but discovered nothing to sufficiently substantiate the suggested defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Abrams v. State