Campbell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably Moody v. State (1992), Grunsfeld v. State (1992)
26 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 Rubin v. United States · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield · Kring v. State of Missouri
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rationale for excluding most, but not all, prior consistent statements being offered to establish the witness’s credibility is one of relevancy_ “Prior consistent statements traditionally have been admissible to rebut charges of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.” But the prior consistent statements have been so admissible only when the statements were made prior to the time the supposed motive to falsify arose. Only then was the prior consistent statement “relévant” on the issue of credibility; that is, it tended to make the trustworthiness of the witness’s in-court testimony more probable, after that testimony had been assailed, inasmuch as the consistency of the prior statement with the witness’s testimony at trial made it “appear that the statement in the form now uttered was independent of the [alleged] discrediting influence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Haughton v. State“the prior consistent statement about which the evidence was admitted were made at the time when the motive to fabricate the reward-money-existed_ Thus, those statements were not admissible as they were made after the very same motive that might have led her to fabricate on the witness stand had arisen —the receiving of the reward money.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ray v. State“[t]he declarant testifies at the trial ... and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bolden 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.