State v. Corella’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. “Rule 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements. When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the party at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Liftee v. Boyer · State v. GABRIS

2. “Lastly, Defendant claims that two responses by Complainant in cross-examination were non-responsive and, in the aggregate, prejudicial. In the first response, Complainant stated she knew that Defendant had been violent in the past. The judge struck this remark from the record. Soon after the first response, Complainant stated that Defendant had “fondled” other women in public. The judge refused to strike this comment. [[Image here]] The first response was made in the following context: Q. [ (Defense attorney) ] [Defendant] did not strike you in any way; is that a fair statement? A. [ (Complainant) ] That is a fair statement. [Defendant]— Q. Just [sic] asked you if he had stricken you, if he had attempted or actually hit you in any way up to this point? A. No. Q. Okay. A. I am aware of his violence in the past. [Defense attorney]: I move that that be stricken from the record and the jury be instructed to disregard that comment. THE COURT: So ordered. The jury will disregard the last remark. Defendant submits that the unfair prejudice resulting from Complainant’s unsolicited reference to Defendant’s alleged prior bad acts was not cured by the trial court’s prompt instruction. The Supreme Court of Hawai'i has held that “any harm or prejudice resulting to the defendant [from a remark by a witness for the prosecution] can be cured by the court’s instructions to the jury. In such cases it will be presumed that the jury adhered to the court’s instructions.” Even so, there are instan”

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

3. “(c) Prior consistent statement of witness. Evidence of a statement previously made by a witness that is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial is admissible to support the witness' credibility only if it is offered after: [[Image here]] (2) An express or implied charge has been made that the witness' testimony at the trial is recently fabricated or is influenced by bias or other improper motive, and the consistent statement was made before the bias, motive for fabrication, or other improper motive is alleged to have arisen....”

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