Van Hatten v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he plain error rule has been held to embody the requirement that the error complained of is obviously prejudicial. [Citation omitted.] There has been little effort to define the obvious prejudice requirement of the plain error rule. We think it clear, however, that the term obvious prejudice demands the application of a standard more stringent than the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt test applied to determine harmless error in cases where errors of constitutional dimension are preserved for appeal by timely objection. [Citation omitted.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Covington · Anderson v. State

2. “(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if (1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and the statement is (A) inconsistent with his testimony. Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, the prior statement shall be excluded unless (i) the witness was so examined while testifying as to give the witness an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement.”

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

3. “Under the doctrine “plain error” embodied in Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 47(b), [the supreme court] will not take notice of an error not brought to the attention of the trial court unless it affects a substantive right and is obviously prejudicial. Not all errors of constitutional dimension must be examined in depth under this standard. [Footnotes omitted.]”

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