Manning v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “• how compellingly the extraneous offense evidence serves to make a fact of consequence more or less probable—a factor which is related to the strength of the evidence presented by the proponent to show the defendant in fact committed the extraneous offense; • the potential the other offense evidence has to impress the jury “in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way”; • the time the proponent will need to develop the evidence, during which the jury will be distracted from consideration of the indicted offense; and • the force of the proponent’s need for this evidence to prove a fact of consequence, ie., does the proponent have other probative evidence available to him to help establish this fact, and is this fact related to an issue in dispute.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pena v. State · Powell v. State

2. “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mechler · Walker v. State

3. “Appellant contends any relevance was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.... TEX.R. EVID. 403.... The unfair prejudice ... lay in the possible appearance appellant was attempting to suborn perjury. As explained in the sufficiency complaint, even assuming Cox saw appellant, it does not follow that appellant committed the robbery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. State