Makinen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The following definitions apply under this article. "* * * "(c) Hearsay. — `Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. "(d) Statements which are not hearsay. — A statement is not hearsay if: "(1) Prior Statement by Witness — The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is * * * (B) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive * * *."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Frenzel v. State · Mitchell v. State

2. “"Rule 801(d)(1)(B), W.R.E., has two express conditions for the admissibility of prior consistent statements: (1) The prior statement must be `consistent with his testimony'; and (2) there must be an `express or implied charge * * * of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.' There is no express condition in the rule which states that the prior consistent statement must be made before the alleged improper motive to fabricate arose. In the absence of an express prohibition, we think the trial court should have the discretion to determine whether a prior consistent statement should be admitted whether or not it was made before an improper motive to fabricate arose. We recognize that there is an inherent difficulty in determining when an improper motive may have arisen and that in any event such determination should be left to the trier of fact. [Citation.] If the drafters of the rule wished to include such a limitation, they could have done so. Therefore, we are reluctant to read further requirements into the rule which are not there."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baum v. State · Jones v. State

3. “(c) Hearsay.-"Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while. testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baum v. State · Byron Nelson Griggs v. State