9 Ariz. App. 290 - State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2008 · most notably State v. Rose (1978), Bachner v. Pearson (1970)
39 state decisions
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 Pointer v. Texas · State v. Little · State v. Narten · Ruth v. Rhodes · State v. Ballesteros
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The defendant complains that he was not permitted to cross-examine the mother of the complaining witness as to whether a civil action was being filed against the defendant arising out of the shooting of her son by the defendant. We believe that this lies within the permissible limits of cross-examination, to show bias or a motive for prevarication on the part of the witness. State v. Little, supra, 87 Ariz. [295] at 301, 350 P.2d 756 [ 86 A.L.R.2d 1120 ] ; and see United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329 (2nd Cir. 1957). State v. Taylor, 9 Ariz.App. 290, 294 , 451 P.2d 648, 652 (1969).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"One of the prime considerations to be taken into account possible prejudice against the defendant to a criminal charge is not present here. We have remaining two policy considerations to compete against the ascertainment of truth. One is the matter of time consumption and confusion of issues. (case cited) In view of the direct bearing that this examination would have upon a critical factual issue and the difficulty of obtaining any better proof of the elusive factum probandum that is, state of mind of the complaining witness this competing consideration does not weigh heavily. "The other competing consideration is the discouragement to witnesses that might result from permitting past misdeeds to be made public. (case cited) When the previous misconduct is offered, only for such disparaging effect as it may have on the general credibility of the witness, this consideration has controlling influence. (case cited) But, when the misconduct bears an inferential connection with a factual issue in the case, the consideration of the discomfiture of the witness must yield to the ascertainment of the truth, at least to the extent of permitting cross-examination, (case cited) and, if the inferential connection is sufficiently strong, to the extent of permitting independent evidence of the conduct. (case cited)"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“But, when the misconduct bears an inferential connection with a factual issue in the case, the consideration of the discomfiture of the witness must yield to the ascertainment of the truth, at least to the extent of permitting cross-examination, [citation omitted], and, if the inferential connection is sufficiently strong, to the extent of permitting independent evidence of the conduct. [citation omitted].” 9 Ariz.App. at 294, 451 P.2d at 652 .”
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.