Stone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[¶ 25] Intoxication from alcohol does not per se establish involuntariness. State v. Baker, 4 Kan.App.2d 340 , 606 P.2d 120, 123 (1980); and State v. Tucker, 32 Wash.App. 83 , 645 P.2d 711, 713 (1982). Instead, for intoxication to render a confession involuntary, the impairment must be so great as to deprive an individual of a capacity to understand the meaning of his statements. See Lee v. State, Okla.Crim., 700 P.2d 1017, 1020 (1985). Even though a defendant appears intoxicated, the fact that he understood what he was doing, carried on a conversation and responded to questions will render the statements admissible. State v. Curry, 127 Ariz. 1 , 617 P.2d 785, 787 (App.1980). The proper inquiry regarding intoxication is whether a confession cannot be said to be the product of rational intellect and free will because of extreme intoxication. State v. Corona, 60 Or.App. 500 , 655 P.2d 216, 219-220 (1982).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Siler v. State · Gordon v. State

2. ““Quite sensibly, courts have had some reluctance to permit the jury to take with it documents of a testimonial character, lest they ‘act as a speaking, continuous witness * * * to the exclusion of the totality of the evidence taken at the trial which must be viewed in its entirety.’ But there is no rule of exclusion for tangible exhibits with verbal content. Nontestimonial exhibits with such content, such as contract documents or recordings of criminal acts which are verbal in nature, are generally allowed to go into the deliberations. Indeed, it would be highly peculiar to withhold such things from the jury’s scrutiny, and somewhat inconsistent with the whole philosophy underlying the Best Evidence Rule[.]””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Munoz v. State · Pino v. State

3. “[a] party who contends that the presence of a witness is essential to the presentation of his cause must bear the burden of supporting that allegation and showing why the policy of Rule 615 in favor of sequestration is inapplicable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Candelaria v. State · Madrid v. State