Kipp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Prosecutor] Q. How do you differentiate between a coached child and a child that’s being truthful and giving you — telling you something that they actually remember happening to them? [objection by appellant overruled] Q. How do you make that determination as a psychologist or anyone? [Dr. Cox] A. Well, there are a number of ways that you look at that. I think, first of all, the coached child is a non-spontaneous child. Their reports in terms of the detail and specificity can go only as far as the adult input who supposedly coached the child. In fact, there will be some loss in terms of recall and memory. Q. Okay. Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose you heard a child give these details. That an offense occurred when she was three-and-a-half years old. It occurred at her daddy's apartment. It occurred in her room at that apartment. On her bed in that room. That she had on pants, that were pulled down to her ankles. That while she was on the bed he touched her on her genital area and then inserted his finger into her rectal area. That it hurt. That then there was a knock on the door, and it was her grandparents. That sequence of events, what would be your opinion as to whether a child could be coached into relaying those types of details? [objection by appellant overruled] Q. What is your professional opinion about that hypothetical? A. That hypothetical strikes me as containing a lot of detail, a lot of sequencing. That would be difficult to coach up a child to give that ”

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

2. “First, as noted earlier, the defense had opened the door to this type of evidence when it produced testimony by Dr. Hayes that the child, in her conversations with him and in his examinations of her, had denied that any sexual conduct had occurred in 1986 or 1987 with her father and that she showed no symptoms of sexual abuse. Second, the evidence was not hearsay because it was offered, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but only to show that the statement was made. Tex. R.Crim.Evid. 801(d). The defense could have had a limiting instruction given to the jury, but it did not request one.”

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

3. “Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b). In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.”

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