Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 Idaho 76 - State v. Griffith

State v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
4
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2015

24 state decisions

9019711980199020002010decided

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 Gallego v. United States · State v. Jordan · State v. Oldham · State v. McKeehan · People v. Larrios

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

  1. “As a general rule in criminal proceedings, an exhibit must be shown to be in substantially the same condition when offered into evidence as it was when the crime was committed. However, the party offering the exhibit need not exclude all possibility of tampering. Where the court is satisfied that in all reasonable probability the article has not been changed in any material respect, the article is admissible into evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “As a general rule in criminal proceedings, an exhibit must be shown to be in substantially the same condition when offered into evidence as it was when the crime was committed. However, the party offering the exhibit need not exclude all possibility of tampering____ Ordinarily, the party offering an exhibit establishes its chain of custody in order to create a presumption that it was not materially altered.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““It is not necessary that an object which is offered in evidence should be in precisely the same condition at the moment of its offer as at the time when it played a part in the occurrence which gave rise to its offer in evidence. But, the change in its condition must not have been wrought for unjustifiable purposes, and it must not be of sufficient moment so that the exhibit will mislead.””
    1 later decision 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.