State v. Pass’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “evidentiary rules designed to permit the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading evidence are unquestionably constitutional.” Id. (quotations omitted). Moore does not develop an argument that section 609.347, subdivision 6, is inconsistent with the constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Accordingly, we construe Moore’s argument to contend that the district court erred in its application of Minnesota law concerning the admissibility of evidence about P.B.’s psychotherapy. 3 . This definition is reflected in a pattern jury instruction. See 10 Minnesota Dist. Judges’ Ass’n, Minnesota Practice-Jury Instruction Guides, § 12.01, at 264-65 (5th ed.2006). The pattern instruction for the elements of third-degree criminal sexual conduct makes a cross-reference to the pattern instruction stating the definition of "force,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore