State v. Badgett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When the defendant opened up the question of his good character and fitness for rehabilitation, the state sought to cross-examine his character witnesses about their acquaintance with the defendant’s background. For this purpose, the trial court allowed the prosecuting attorney to ask two of the witnesses about their knowledge of numerous other “bad acts” committed by Badgett, all of which had resulted in criminal charges but none of which had yet come to trial. The defendant now complains that this was reversible error, citing State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 642 (Tenn.1984), for the proposition that “arrests and indictments are generally inadmissible.” In response, the state relied on Crawford v. State, 197 Tenn. 411 , 273 S.W.2d 689 (1964), and Stepheny v. State, 670 S.W. 2d 356, 359 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978). Crawford held that specific acts of misconduct are generally inadmissible to rebut evidence of good character, but that they may be admissible on cross-examination to test the value of a character witness’s testimony concerning good character. 273 S.W.2d at 691-2 . In Stepheny, this court noted: [It] would not be in harmony with the primary function of a trial as a truth-finding expedition to allow the [defendant] to present to a jury through character witnesses an unchallenged cloak of respectability and standing in the community when in fact that was not true. 570 S.W.2d at 359 . In allowing cross-examination concerning Badgett’s pending charges, the trial judge echoed th”

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