State v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2017
24 state decisions
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 36 Cal. 3d 77 - People v. Tassell · 20 Cal. 3d 457 - People v. Thomas · People v. Ing · 249 Cal. App. 2d 81 - People v. Covert · State v. Needs
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.
“[T]his type of evidence can be admitted if relevant to prove: (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) the absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, (5) the identity of the person charged with the com mission of the crime on trial, and (6) other similar issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Winkler“[t]he decision to admit evidence of other crimes involves a two-tiered analysis. First, as with all evidence, the proof must be relevant to a material issue concerning the crime charged____ Second, and only if the evidence is deemed relevant, it must be determined whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the unfair prejudice to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bussard
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.