State v. Sua’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Hearsay exception; prior statements by witnesses. The following statements previously made by witnesses who testily at the trial or hearing are not excluded by the hearsay rule: (1) Inconsistent statement. The declarant is subject to cross-examination concerning the declarant’s statement, the statement is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, the statement is offered in compliance with rule 613(b), and the statement was: [[Image here]] (C) Recorded in a substantially verbatim fashion by stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other means contemporaneously with the making of the statement; [[Image here]] (3) Prior identification. The declarant is subject to cross-examination concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement, and the statement is one of identification of a person made after perceiving that person; or (4) Past recollection recorded. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which the witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’ memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse parly.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sua

2. “the [prosecution] failed to submit evidence that the prior inconsistent statements were “[r]ecorded in substantially verbatim fashion ... contemporaneously with the making of the statement.” During trial, the prosecutor referred to transcripts of Kaowili’s and P[ ]uahi’s statements several times and apparently was allowed to read from them. The prosecutor also represented to the court that the statements were recorded and that Shimatsu would testify to that fact. The prosecutor, however, neglected to adduce such testimony from Shimatsu.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sua

3. “Robbery in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the first degree if, in the course of committing theft: [[Image here]] (b) The person is armed with a dangerous instrument and: (i) The person uses force against the person of anyone present with intent to overcome that person’s physical resistance or physical power of resistance; or (ii) The person threatens the imminent use of force against the person of anyone who is present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sua