Lessard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Expert testimony now is addressed in Rule 702, W.R.E., which provides in pertinent part: "`If * * * specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert * * * may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.' "Rule 704, W.R.E., says: "`Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.' "This court, in harmony with the language of Rule 702, W.R.E., has said that expert testimony is admissible if it is helpful to the trier of fact. Buhrle v. State, Wyo., 627 P.2d 1374 (1981); McCabe v. R.A. Manning Construction Company, Inc., Wyo., 674 P.2d 699 (1983); Reed v. Hunter, Wyo., 663 P.2d 513 (1983)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stephens v. State · Trujillo v. State

2. ““ * * * The expert * * * testified that most rape victims at some point ask their assailant not to tell. The witness then gave her opinion of why victims usually do this. * * * [T]he trial judge permitted the expert witness to testify on the basis of her specialized knowledge in order to assist the jury to understand one aspect of the evidence. That was a matter which had troubled both the prosecutor and the defense counsel, i.e., why would a victim ask the assailant not to tell about the sexual encounter.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whiteplume v. State · Scadden v. State

3. “(a)Any actor who inflicts sexual intrusion on a victim commits a sexual assault in the first degree if: (i) The actor causes submission of the victim through the actual application, reasonably calculated to cause submission of the victim, of physical force or forcible confinement; * * * * * * (iii) The victim is physically helpless, and the actor knows or reasonably should know that the victim is physically helpless and that the victim has not consented; or * * *.”

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