856 So. 2d 561 - Ellis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he questions regarding [the detective’s] alleged prior bád acts were too far removed to be relevant. There is a very distinct and substantive difference between alleged, unsubstantiated bad acts and prior bad acts. Ellis complains of not being allowed to elicit testimony regarding bad acts with no attendant evidence to support its truth. The admission of such unfounded allegations would only cloud the minds of the jurors and would have no probative value.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Derrick Johnson v. State of Mississippi · 10 So. 3d 519 - Betts v. State

2. “The accused in a criminal trial has a fundamental right implicit in the confrontation clauses of our state and federal constitutions to cross-examine witnesses testifying against him. However, the rule does not allow cross-examination on any matter affecting the credibility of witnesses without restraint. The privilege only extends to any matter that is relevant. Accordingly, “the scope of cross-examination though ordinarily broad, is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court possesses inherent power to limit cross-examination to relevant matters.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 10 So. 3d 519 - Betts v. State

3. “The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. ANTWINE EQUALITY GRAVES v. State