93 Wash. 2d 95 - State v. Parr’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably 126 Wash. 2d 244 - State v. Powell (1995), 106 Wash. 2d 176 - State v. Hughes (1986)
51 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 Bruton v. United States · Shepard v. United States · 53 Cal. 2d 160 - People v. Atchley · United States v. Brown · 55 Cal. 2d 881 - People v. Hamilton
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But the testimony concerning a threat and other conduct of the petitioner was not properly admissible under the rule and was highly prejudicial. While this court has, in at least one case, approved the admission of similar testimony, the weight of authority is against it, and the prejudicial effect of such evidence is generally recognized. The subject is dealt with at length in many cases gathered in a scholarly opinion by Judge MacKinnon in United States v. Brown, [ 490 F.2d 758 (D.C. Cir.1973)]. The conclusion of that opinion is stated at pages 773-74: The rule then to be distilled from the better reasoned decisions is that a victim's extra-judicial declarations of fear of the defendant are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule with a limiting instruction only if there is a manifest need for such evidence, i.e., if it is relevant to a material issue in the case. Where there is a substantial likelihood of prejudice to the defendant's case in the admission of such testimony, it is inadmissible if it bears only a remote or artificial relationship to the legal or factual issues raised in the case. Even where there is substantial relevance, the additional factual matters in the statement may simply be too explosive to be contained by the limiting instruction, in which case exclusion of the testimony is also necessitated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(3) Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“permits statements reporting the declarant's state of mind, but does not permit statements reporting the conduct of another which might have induced that state of mind.”
2 later decisions 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.