83 Md. App. 279 - Cole v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is subject to limitations such as 1) the requirement that the victim actually testify; 2) the timeliness of the complaint; and 3) the extent to which the references may be restricted to the fact that the complaint was made, the circumstances under which it was made, and the identification of the culprit, rather than recounting the substance of the complaint in full detail.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 Md. App. 252 - Parker v. State · 223 Md. App. 255 - Muhammad v. State

2. “[T]he timely complaint has evolved as a hybrid form of anticipatory rehabilitation, as something that does not wait to respond to impeachment but instead forestalls it. The unusual anticipatory or forestalling character of such evidence was discussed by 4 Wiymore on Evidence (Chadbourn rev.1972), § 1135, “Complaint or rape (continued): (A) First theory: Explanation of an inconsistency; fact of complaint is admissible,” at 298-300: “So, where nothing appears on the trial as to the making of such a complaint, the jury might naturally assume that none was made, and counsel for the accused might be entitled to argue upon that assumption. As a peculiarity, therefore, of this kind of evidence, it is only just that the prosecution should be allowed to forestall this natural assumption by showing that the woman was not silent, i.e., that a complaint was in fact made. This apparently irregular process of negativing evidence not yet formally introduced by the opponent is regular enough in reality, because the impression upon the tribunal would otherwise be there as if the opponent had really offered evidence of the woman’s silence. Thus the essence of the process consists in the showing that the woman did not in fact behave with a silence inconsistent with her present story. The courts have fully sanctioned this analysis of the situation.” (Footnote omitted) (Emphasis in original).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Choate v. State · 137 Md. App. 402 - Nelson v. State

3. “[I]n its anticipatory and forestalling capacity, the complaint, traditionally nonhearsay, seems slowly to have been evolving into some thing that at least trenches on the borderland between nonhearsay and hearsay. The timeliness of the complaint and the circumstances under which it is made tend to establish the trustworthiness of its content. This is classically a consideration when dealing with hearsay. The admissibility, moreover, of such contextual attributes as the nature of the crime complained of, the time and place of the attack, and the identity of the assailant, are matters that seem to implicate the truth of the thing asserted. It may be, to be sure, that there is a technical though subtle distinction between supporting the happening of an event per se and supporting the testimonial credibility of a witness to that event. Wisely, jury instructions have never ventured into such treacherously and inevitably confusing and counter-productive considerations.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 Md. App. 252 - Parker v. State · 137 Md. App. 402 - Nelson v. State