Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 717 P.2d 1325 - State v. Banner

State v. Banner’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably State v. Robertson (1997), State v. Powell (2007)

41 state decisions

1501986199020002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Barker v. Wingo · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Luce v. United States · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba

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

  1. “[1] the nature of the crime, as bearing on the character for veracity of the witness. [2] the recentness or remoteness of the prior conviction.... [3] the similarity of the prior crime to the charged crime, insofar as a close resemblance may lead the jury to punish the accused as a bad person. [4] the importance of credibility issues in determining the truth in a prosecution tried without decisive nontestimo-nial evidence.... [5] the importance of the accused’s testimony, as perhaps warranting the exclusion of convictions probative of the accused’s character for veracity....”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “to the interpretations of the federal rules [of evidence] by the federal courts to aid in interpreting the Utah rules.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.