897 So. 2d 921 - Payton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the court can allow the surprised party a reasonable opportunity to examine the newly produced evidence; (2) if after the surprised party reviews the new evidence, the party claims unfair surprise and “seeks a continuance or mistrial, the court shall, in the interest of justice and absent unusual circumstances, exclude the evidence or grant a continuance for a period of time reasonably necessary ■ for the defense to meet the non-disclosed evidence or grant a mistrial”; or (3) the party can withdraw the evidence.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matthews v. City of Madison · Thomas v. State

2. “[T]his Court has ... held many times that `a violation of Rule 9.04 is considered harmless error unless it affirmatively appears from the entire record that the violation caused a miscarriage of justice.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pilgrim v. State · Gray v. State

3. “[permitting the jury to see the defendant bound and shackled improperly encroaches on the defendant’s presumption of innocence. If this right of the accused is violated, it may be ground for the reversal of [the] conviction. However, the failure, through an oversight, to remove handcuffs from a prisoner for a short time or any technical violation of the rule prohibiting shackling, not prejudicial to him, is not ground for reversal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 188 So. 3d 625 - Nathaniel Hampton v. State of Mississippi · 921 So. 2d 292 - Spicer v. State