State v. Doppler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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. “(a) In General. .-The following rules apply to attacking a.witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction: (1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence: (A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and (B) must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial ef-feet to that defendant; and (2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the elements of the crime required proving, or the witness’s admitting, a dishonest act or false statement.”

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

2. “[¶ 7] Rule 404(b), N.D.R.Ev., states: “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. However, it may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.””

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

3. “A trial court abuses its discretion if the record does not show that the trial court meaningfully or appropriately considered the relevant factors' when it weighed the prior conviction’s probative value and prejudicial effect. Although we prefer the trial court to articulate expressly how it balanced the relevant factors, it is often enough for the court to hold a brief heaping and to make an explicit finding on the record that demonstrates the trial court did not just apply [N.D.R.Ev. 609(a)(1) ] mechanically.”

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