662 So. 2d 1095 - Powell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2017
17 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 Jenkins v. Anderson · 557 So. 2d 542 - Griffin v. State · Stringer v. State · 644 So. 2d 1235 - Duplantis v. State · 511 So. 2d 1368 - Tolbert 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The determination of whether evidence is properly admitted as rebuttal evidence is within the trial court's discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“formulate its own rules of evidence to determine when prior silence is so inconsistent with present statements that impeachment by reference to such silence is probative.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“M.R.E. 615 provides that, at the request of a party, the court shall order witnesses excluded from the courtroom so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. Often called "the rule," the witness exclusion rule serves to discourage a witness's tailoring his testimony to what he has heard from the stand and the rule serves to facilitate exposing false testimony. Powell v. State, 662 So.2d 1095, 1097-98 (Miss.1995) (citing Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1083 (Miss.1992); Moffett v. State, 540 So.2d 1313, 1317 (Miss.1989); Doby v. State, 532 So.2d 584, 589 (Miss. 1988)). Remedies for violations include prohibiting the witness from testifying, striking his testimony, citing him for contempt, or allowing a "full-bore" cross-examination. Gerrard v. State, 619 So.2d 212, 217 (Miss.1993). It is within the trial judge's discretion to determine what remedy is appropriate. Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1083 (Miss.1992).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Proby 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.