State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 30 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the trier of fact [is] to consider the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine if such felony was inherently dangerous in the manner and the circumstances in which it was committed....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Michael Patino · Contreras v. State

2. “[E]vidence of prior crimes is not admissible to prove the propensity of a defendant to commit such a crime * * *.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mohapatra · State v. Merida

3. ““The purpose of surrebuttal is to permit the defendant to introduce evidence in refutation or opposition to new matters interjected into the trial by the plaintiff on rebuttal. * * * In other words, fairness requires that the defendant be permitted to oppose new matters presented by plaintiff for the first time which the defendant could not have presented or opposed at the time of presentation of his main case. Contrariwise, the purpose of surrebuttal is not the introduction of evidence merely cumulative to that presented by the defendant in its original presentation. * * * It follows that the defendant has no right to present surrebuttal evidence merely because the plaintiff has presented rebuttal evidence.” State v. Stewart, 663 A.2d 912, 927-28 (R.I.1995) (quoting State v. Byrnes, 433 A.2d 658, 669-70 (R.I.1981)).”

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