1 Ohio App. 2d 22 - State v. Pigott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In any criminal case in which the defendant’s motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan, or system in doing an act is material, any acts of the defendant which tend to show his motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan, or system in doing the act in question may be proved, whether they are contemporaneous with or prior or subsequent thereto, notwithstanding that such proof may show or tend to show the commission of another crime by the defendant.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 Ohio App. 2d 184 - State v. Williams · 15 Ohio App. 2d 160 - State v. Crafton

2. ““There are many cases holding that when receiving evidence under the similar act statute, Section 2945.59, Revised Code, it is the duty of the trial court in each instance to instruct the jury at the time of the reception of such evidence that it is received under the similar act statute and to instruct on the limited purpose for which such evidence is received. A proper instruction in this connection should include a definite admonition ‘that such evidence is not to be considered as substantive evidence or proof of the crime charged.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 Ohio App. 2d 160 - State v. Crafton

3. ““* * * This court is fully aware that this type of evidence can be highly prejudicial unless its introduction and reception is meticulously handled by the trial court. Furthermore, unless the rights of the defendant are properly safeguarded, the door is opened to a conviction of an accused by evidence which was not designed for that purpose and a denial to the accused of the fair trial he is entitled to. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 Ohio App. 2d 184 - State v. Williams