State v. Rasmussen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * What may be prejudicial on a close case may not be in a case where the evidence is fairly clear. If we take a case where there is a mountain of evidence for one side and a molehill of evidence for the other side, an instruction, which in a Close case would likely puzzle the jury or influence them in such case may not be prejudicial, because, regardless of instructions it would be very unlikely that they would decide in favor of the molehill. “Prejudice cannot be judged purely intrinsically on the claimed error, but in view of the whole case. We can hardly consider the jurors as if they were a body of highly trained lawyers, wool combing the evidence and instructions for highly technical points upon which to determine their decision. * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fowler v. Medical Arts Bldg. · State v. Roedl

2. ““the so-called res gestae is in fact simply another exception to the hearsay rule, based on the fact that there are assurances sufficient to make it reliable even though there is no opportunity to cross-examine. But that assurance based on the spontaneity necessary to make it the automatic result of the excitation engendered by the occasion and to eliminate any probability that it was the product of reflection or rationalization must be present. * * * “It should be noted that since the sole basis for admitting statements of this kind depends on what we have chosen to call their ‘automatic’ nature, the court should be fairly well convinced that such basis exists; otherwise, statements of witnesses in regard to which there may he no opportunity to cross-examine will be admitted to the great prejudice of the opposite party.””

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

3. “How far up the trunk and branches of the evidence tree must this unanimity extend?”

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