State v. Maddox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes. (a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of a person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: .... (2) Character of victim. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused , or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor[.] .... (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible where such evidence is probative of another fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, modus operandi, or absence of mistake or accident. In criminal cases, the proponent of evidence to be offered under this subsection shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the date, location, and general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.”

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

2. “to support Mota being the first aggressor, however Maddox did not seek to recall Mota after Maddox testified. Id. The ICA therefore concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Mota's prior acts of violence because the requests to introduce that evidence”

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

3. “Mota's testimony did not raise a factual issue regarding who was the first aggressor but instead plainly showed that Maddox was the first aggressor.”

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