State v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 31 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. “On cross-examination, the defense counsel attempted to question the witness about the victim’s thirty-two and thirty-three year old convictions pursuant to New Mexico Evidence Rule 405(a), N.M.S.A. 1978, which reads: In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. The trial judge did not allow specific questions concerning the prior convictions; however, defense counsel was allowed to ask the witness if she had heard of any prior convictions of the victim to which she answered “no”. On cross-examination, it is within the trial judge’s discretion to exclude evidence. The trial court in its discretion may exclude inquiry of convictions such as these that are so remote, unless recent misconduct causes a revival. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 , 484, 69 S.Ct. 213 , 222, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948). Although such convictions are relevant and the proper subject for cross-examination, it is within the trial judge’s discretion to exclude them. The defendant argues that the victim’s recent conduct revived the conviction; however, it was within the trial judge’s discretion to determine whether there was a revival that would allow the witnesses to be cross-examined about the convictions. The limits of cross-examination are within the discretion of the trial court”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ewing v. Winans

2. “1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit documents showing the victim’s prior convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 1947; voluntary manslaughter in 1948; and negligent use of a firearm in 1979; 2. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing the defense counsel to cross-examine the state’s character witness as to her knowledge of the victim’s prior convictions; 3. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that a witness was unavailable to testify and so admitting her deposition into evidence; 4. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial or a continuance because defense counsel lacked an opportunity to interview a witness; and 5. Whether cumulative error resulted in denial of a fair trial.”

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

3. “evidence of specific acts of violence on the part of the deceased could be introduced by a defendant if there was evidence that the defendant had been informed of, or had knowledge of, those acts at the time of the homicide. Such evidence would have some bearing on the reasonableness of defendant's apprehension for his life.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trujillo v. Sullivan