Charley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because there are no statutory requirements regarding the method of measurement or the operation of a measurement device, and because there is no complex scientific process necessary to obtain a measurement of distance ..., we reject Charley's contention that the State was required to offer expert testimony regarding the operation or accuracy of the measuring device used in this case. Moreover, we determine that the State is only required to show that the measuring device was accurate and was operated correctly in order to allow the admission of the distance as evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sparkman v. State · Smith v. State

2. “Based upon the simple nature of the measuring device utilized here, we determine that [the police officer|'s testimony was sufficient to lay an adequate foundation prior to the admission of the distance of Charley's possession of co caine from the school. Moreover, Charley has failed to present any evidence to indicate that the measuring wheel was inaccurate or unreliable. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting his testimony regarding the [distance].”

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