Vaupel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2020
14 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 Luce v. United States · Brooks v. Tennessee · New Jersey v. Portash · United States v. Beahm · United States v. Oakes
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General Rule-For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, (1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one (1) year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and (2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment. (b) Time Limit.-Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten (10) years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and cireumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. State“Iulnder Rule 609(b), the court must view specific facts and cireumstances and decide not only that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect, but also that the probative value is 'substantially' outweighed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We hold that if an accused does not testify, he does not preserve the issue of the propriety of a ruling on his motion in limine for appeal.” Vaupel, 708 P.2d at 1250 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tennant 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.