State v. Kidd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Evidence is said to be cumulative when it relates to a matter so ‘fully and properly proved by other testimony’ as to take it out of the area of serious dispute.” State v. McCauley, 831 S.W.2d 741, 743 (Mo.App.1992) (quoting State v. Weatherspoon, 728 S.W,2d 267, 273 (Mo. App.1987)). The control of cumulative evidence is -committed to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Wade, 926 S,W.2d 43, 45 (Mo.App.1996). We defer to the trial court in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Id. Additionally, “evidence is-not to be rejected as-cumulative when it goes to the very root of the matter in controversy or relates to the main issue, the decision of which turns on the weight of the evidence,” State v. Perry, 879 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Mo.App. 1994). “The state, especially in view of its heavy burden, should not be unduly limited in the amount of evidence it adduces, even if cumulative.” State v. Welty, 729 S.W.2d 594, 600 (Mo.App.1987).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cummings v. State · Shallow v. Follwell

2. “A statement made by a child under the age of twelve relating to an offense under chapter 565, 566 or 568, RSMo, performed with or on a child by another, not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule, is admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings in the courts of this state as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted if: (1) The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient.indi-cia of reliability; and (2)(a) The child testifies at the proceedings; or (b) The child is unavailable as a witness; or (c) The child is otherwise physically available as a witness but the court finds that the significant emotional or psychological trauma which would result from testifying in the personal presence of the defendant makes the child unavailable as a witness at the time of the criminal proceeding.”

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