State v. Merida’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, or, in the discretion of the trial judge, evidence of prior similar false accusations, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Scanlon · State v. Manning

2. “"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or to prove that defendant feared imminent bodily harm and that the fear was reasonable."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rodriguez · State v. Robinson

3. “"It is trae that there exists a narrow exception to our 'raise-or-waive' rule. State v. Mastracchio, 672 A.2d 438, 446 (R.I.1996). For that exception to apply, however, 'the alleged error must be more than harmless, and the exception must implicate an issue of constitutional dimension derived from a novel rale of law that could not reasonably have been known to counsel at the time of trial.’ State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50, 57 (R.I.2001)[.]””

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