State v. Hazard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘[t]he purpose of an offer of proof is to enable this [Cjourt to determine the materiality, relevance, and competence of the evidence.’ State v. Cote, 691 A.2d 537, 541 (R.I.1997). Such offers ‘[shall] be reasonably specific, rather than general, should include a statement of the facts to which the witness would testify, should indicate the purpose and object of the proof offered, and should establish that the evidence sought to be admitted is admissible.’ Id. at 542 .” Hazard, 785 A.2d at 1120 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Pena-Rojas

2. ““When a trial justice sustains an objection to a line of inquiry on cross-examination and opposing counsel fails to make an offer of proof, fails to request any voir dire of the witness, and fails to articulate any reason why the court should reconsider its ruling, then that party cannot, on appeal, question the trial justice’s ruling in sustaining the objection as reversible error.””

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

3. “the importance of the witness's testimony; whether the testimony was cumulative; the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the witness's testimony on material points; the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted; and the overall strength of the prosecution's case.”

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