Kernochan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"the [hearsay exception under Rule 803(3)(b)] applies when the statement directly reflects the declarant's state of mind — e.g. , `I plan to kill George'; `I love you' or `I wanted to run over him.' The definitional approach under § 801(c), on the other hand, only circumstantially [implies] state of mind. This latter approach would be illustrated in a will contest case, based upon alleged lack of testamentary capacity, in which the offered statement is that of the testator's having stated: `I am Abraham Lincoln.' This statement, obviously, is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it is offered circumstantially as a base from which to infer that the declarant lacked the prerequisite testamentary capacity to execute the will being contested."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 781 So. 2d 1007 - Montgomery v. State

2. “what his brother-in-law told the appellant was an out-of-court statement, but it was not being offered to prove the truth of the brother-in-law's statement. Whether the brother-in-law's statement to the appellant was true or not was of no importance. The only importance of the statement was what effect it had on the appellant's state of mind that would cause him to leave the state of Alabama”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 781 So. 2d 1007 - Montgomery v. State

3. “A statement offered for some other purpose other than to prove the truth of its factual assertion is not hearsay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 781 So. 2d 1007 - Montgomery v. State