State v. Stumes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 42 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a confession or an incriminating statement allegedly made by the accused is offered by the prosecution and objected to, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the same was freely and voluntarily made. This proof must be made in an independent hearing of all relevant facts outside the presence of the jury. At this hearing the defendant may testify and be cross-examined as to the issue of voluntariness without jeopardy to or waiver of his right to remain silent at the trial. After hearing the facts the trial judge must finally and solely determíne, as a matter of law, whether or not the confession or incriminating statement is, or is not, voluntary. This determination and the evidence upon which it is based should be made part of the record. If found to be involuntary the confession or statements may not be admitted at the trial as evidence. If found to be voluntary they may be admitted in evidence for consideration by the jury as to their weight and credibility together with all other facts and circumstances. No special instructions on this subject should be necessary. •”

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

2. ““It is abundantly clear, however, that absent the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law which make up a ‘decision,’ RCP 52(a); Bunnell v. Kindt, 1968, 83 S.D. 377 , 159 N.W.2d 923 , this court’s review is seriously hampered, if not made impossible, because of the inability of this court to determine the credibility of the witnesses which determination is within the purview of the trial court before whom the witnesses appeared. “The total lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law in the present case causes us to remand this case for a determination of the factual issue upon the evidence previously adduced.” 241 N.W.2d at 591 .”

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

3. “In either event the trial court shall make the ‘determination,’ as suggested by this court in State v. Thundershield, supra, reiterated more explicitly in State v. Kiehn, supra, and which we now hold is required. The determination requiring the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law we equate with a ‘decision.’”

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