Richter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * Historically, our Court has jealously guarded the right provided in Art. 1, § 11 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming against any infringement. Irvin v. State, [Wyo., 560 P.2d 372 (1977)], Jerskey v. State, Wyo., 546 P.2d 173 (1976); Dryden v. State, Wyo., 535 P.2d 483 (1975); Moss v. State, Wyo., 492 P.2d 1329 (1972); Priestley v. State, Wyo., 446 P.2d 405 (1968); Dickey v. State, Wyo., 444 P.2d 373 (1968); and Miskimmins v. Shaver, 8 Wyo. 392 , 58 P. 411 , 49 L.R.A. 831 (1899). We hold that under this section of our state constitution any comment upon an accused's exercise of his right of silence, whether by interrogation of the accused himself, or by interrogation of others inherently is prejudicial, and will entitle an accused to reversal of his conviction. Such a breach of the accused's constitutional protections is plain error and prejudicial per se. While, in the light of the language of Doyle v. Ohio, [ 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976)], this may represent an extension of the rule of that case, it is our prerogative to so do in applying our state constitution. * * *" Clenin v. State, supra, 573 P.2d at 846 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Brewster v. State · Westmark v. State

2. ““Here, the prosecutor asked Ronald Richter whether he volunteered his version of the events upon his arrest to the police. An objection was immediately made and sustained. The jury was not thereafter told whether he did or did not tell the police anything. Further, the jurors were instructed to disregard the question. No mention of the question was again made. The matter of silence was not exploited by the State. Since it was one isolated comment which was ambiguous, and since the evidence of appellant’s guilt was overwhelming, we believe it is appropriate in this case to uphold the trial court’s determination not to grant a mistrial. We firmly believe that there was no reasonable possibility that the error made any difference in the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we hold that the rule of harmless error is available and that in this case the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * ” Richter v. State, supra, at 1275.”

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

3. “the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In adopting the statutory elements test for lesser included offenses, we then followed United States Supreme Court guidance. Two years later, however, in analyzing a defendant's right not to incriminate himself under the same state constitutional provision and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we noted the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Mogard v. City of Laramie