Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 853 P.2d 862 - State v. Seale

State v. Seale’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

1 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably State v. Menzies (1994), State v. Loose (2000)

1 district · 26 state decisions

1501993200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Idaho v. Wright · Delaware v. Fensterer · Kentucky v. Stincer · United States v. Owens

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

  1. “(1) In any case concerning a charge of child abuse or of a sexual offense against a child, the oral statement of a victim or witness younger than 14 years of age may be recorded prior to the filing of an information or indictment, and upon motion and for good cause shown is admissible as evidence in any court proceeding regarding the offense if all of the following conditions are met: . . . . (1)(g) the court views the recording before it is shown to the jury and determines that it is sufficiently reliable and trustworthy and that the interest of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and (1)(h) the child is available to testify and to be cross-examined at trial ... or the court determines that the child is unavailable....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the trial court must make an in-depth evaluation of the proposed testimony as required by subsection 76-5-411(1). This inquiry may require consideration of some matters not specifically mentioned in the statute. For example, to determine the reliability of the statement, a court should consider how soon after the event it was given, whether the statement was spontaneous, the questions asked to elicit it, the number of times the statement was repeated or rehearsed, and whether the statement is reproduced verbatim in court, viz., tape recording, video tape, or otherwise. The trial court should then enter findings and conclusions regarding each of the factors listed in the statute to explain its reasons for admitting or excluding the testimony.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Although both provisions are couched in slightly different terms, both seek the same end—a determination that proffered out-of-court statements are sufficiently reliable and trustworthy to be admitted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.