State v. Motta’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2020
23 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 Gilbert v. California · California v. Arizona · Tate v. United States · 81 Ill. 2d 571 - People v. Rogers · Williams v. United States
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.
“The following statements previously made by witnesses who testify at the trial ... are not excluded by the hearsay rule: (3) Prior identification. The declarant is subject to cross-examination concerning the subject matter of the de-clarant’s statement, and the statement is one of identification of a person made after perceiving that person[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The burden is on the State to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every material element of a crime charged. A defendant is presumed to be innocent and it is your duty to acquit a defendant unless the evidence convinces you of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury must not convict a person charged with crime upon mere suspicion or upon evidence which only shows a probability of guilt. What the law requires before a defendant can be convicted of a crime is not suspicion, not probabilities, but proof of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cordeira“Although a composite sketch is hearsay, it may still be admissible under Haw. R. Evid. 802.1(3) if (1) the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the subject matter of his statement and (2) the statement is one of identification of a person made after perceiving him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Ildefonso
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.