Surber v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It was unclear exactly when the molestations occurred, but all of C.S.’s statements were made relatively close in time to each other. C.S.’s statements to Douglas were spontaneous, and some of her statements to Nurse Renz were spontaneous. C.S. used age-appropriate terminology and had no motive to fabricate. Moreover, the trial court found that C.S. was able to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and C.S. was five years old at the time she made the statements. Surber contends that “there was a certain amount of leading in the questions” asked by McClain, Cal-len, and Renz, and that there was opportunity for coaching..., Surber does not identify the alleged leading questioning, and our review of the record does not reveal suggestive questioning or an indication of coaching. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the time, content, and circumstances of the statements and videotape provided sufficient indications of reliability.”

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

2. “(d) A statement or videotape that: (1) is made by a person who at the time of trial is a protected person; (2) concerns an act that is a material element of [child molesting] that was allegedly committed against the person; and (3) is not otherwise admissible in evidence; is admissible in evidence in a criminal action for [child molesting] if the requirements of subsection (e) are met. (e) A statement or videotape described in subsection (d) is admissible in evidence in a criminal action listed in subsection (a) or (b) if, after notice to the defendant of a hearing and of the defendant's right to be present, all of the following conditions are met: (1) The court finds, in a hearing: (A) conducted outside the presence of the jury; and (B) attended by the protected person; that the time, content, and cireum-stances of the statement or videotape provide sufficient indications of reliability. (2) The protected person: (A) testifies at the trial;. ...”

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

3. “Considerations in making the reliability determination under Ind.Code § 85-37 4-6 include: (1) the time and cireum-stances of the statement, (2) whether there was significant opportunity for coaching, (8) the nature of the questioning, (4) whether there was a motive to fabricate, (5) use of age appropriate terminology, and (6) spontaneity and repetition.”

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