92 Md. App. 422 - Banks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably People v. Humphrey (1996), Moye v. State (2002)
29 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 Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church · State v. Evans · United States v. Brown · Hook v. State · Wright v. State
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[notwithstanding evidence that the defendant was the first aggressor, used excessive force, or failed to retreat at the time of the alleged offense, when the defendant raises the issue that the defendant was, at the time of the alleged offense, suffering from the Battered Spouse Syndrome as a result of the past course of conduct of the individual who is the victim of the crime for which the defendant has been charged, the court may admit for the purpose of explaining the defendant’s motive or state of mind, or both, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense: (1) Evidence of repeated physical and psychological abuse of the defendant perpetrated by an individual who is the victim of a crime for which the defendant has been charged; and (2) Expert testimony on the Battered Spouse Syndrome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... nonhearsay; [the testimony] was offered because it contains threats made against officers of the federal courts, i.e., it contains the operative words of this criminal action. It was not `offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted[.]' Id. at 571 . [¶ 24.] Likewise, in this case, the testimony was offered as evidence of the fact that the call was made to Hagans, but intended for Swimmer. Because Norman's statements to Hagan were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, Norman's statements were not hearsay. [¶ 25.] Instead, Hagans' testimony was evidence of a verbal act. "Verbal acts are those `out-of-court statements [that] are operative legal facts which constitute the basis of a claim, charge or defense ... and are nonhearsay.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Charger“Two types of evidence are not hearsay simply because § 19-16-1(801) excludes them by definition. First, verbal acts that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to establish what was done or created, are an actual part of the transaction involved in the lawsuit, and are excluded from the definition of hearsay by § 19-16-1(3) (801(c)). Obviously, a contract, [for example,] written or oral, would not be excluded as an out-of-court statement in a lawsuit based on it. The contract was an actual part of the transaction, and had independent legal significance or consequence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Charger
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.