Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2011
16 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 Thomas v. State · Jackson v. State · Cape v. State · Smith v. Duckworth · Brackens 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) there is a disagreement among the jurors as to any part of the testimony; or (2) the jury desires to be informed as to any point of law arising in the case; the jury may request the officer to conduct them into court, where the information required shall be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the parties or the attorneys representing the parties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“5.1 Materials to jury room. (a) the court in its discretion may permit the jury, upon retiring for deliberation, to take to the jury room a copy of the charges against the defendant and exhibits and writings which have been received in evidence, exeept depositions. (b) Among the considerations which are appropriate in the exercise of this discretion are: (1) whether the material will aid the jury in a proper consideration of the case; (ii) whether any party will be unduly prejudiced by submission of the material; and (iii) whether the material may be subjected to improper use by the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harris v. State“[allthough the tapes given to the jury in this case were not of trial testimony and therefore the error in giving the jury the tapes was not of constitutional dimension, ... it was nevertheless error to permit the jury to review the tapes on its own. The statute itself creates in the defendant a substantial right to be present when the jury interrupts its deliberations to review evidence not commended to it by the trial court at the beginning of its deliberations. We therefore cannot say that this violation of § 34-1-21-6 did not affect Powell's substantial rights. Ind. Trial Rule 61.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Schlabach v. State
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.