65 Md. App. 105 - Teeter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 2001
2 federal appellate · 21 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 Solem v. Helm · Woodson v. North Carolina · Rummel v. Estelle · Palmer v. Hoffman · Specht v. Patterson
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“affords the defendant the right of confrontation and cross-examination required under the Due Process Clause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Third conviction of crime of violence. —Any person who (1) has been convicted of two separate occasions of a crime of violence where the convictions do not arise from a single incident, and (2) has served at least one term of confinement in a correctional institution as a result of a conviction of a crime of violence, shall be sentenced, on being convicted a third time of a crime of violence, to imprisonment for the term allowed by law, but, in any event, not less than twenty-five years. Neither the sentence nor any part of it may be suspended, and the person shall not be eligible for parole except in accordance with the provisions of Article 31B, § 11. (d) Compliance with Maryland Rules. —If the State intends to proceed against a person as a subsequent offender under this section, it shall comply with the procedures set forth in the Maryland Rules for the indictment and trial of a subsequent offender.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We hold that proceedings to increase punishment for a charged offense because of prior convictions aré part of the sentencing procedure. The rules of evidence applicable in a trial on the issue , of innocence or guilt are not controlling. As a general rule hearsay is admissible at such a proceeding. As Sullivan v. State, [ 29 Md.App. 622 , 349 A.2d 663 (1976) ] states, in a mandatory sentencing, however, the State carries the additional burden of proving the allegations of prior offenses and incarceration beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that to meet that burden, the State must prove those factual predicates under § 643B [6] with competent evidence.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.