People v. Spencer’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 1984 · most notably United States v. Brown (1973), People v. Irvin (1968)
3 federal appellate · 44 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 People v. Winston · Adkins v. Brett · 89 Cal. App. 2d 742 - People v. Malicoat · People v. Indian Peter · 107 Cal. App. 2d 656 - Bates v. Superior Court
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here the record was clear, before the question of appellant's prior conviction of the misdemeanor conviction of possession of heroin was first asked by the prosecutor, from appellant's own testimony above quoted that appellant knew what heroin was. His defense, already developed, was not that he did not know what heroin was but that he was not guilty of the possession and sale of the particular heroin as charged in the information. Since it was already clear that knowledge of the narcotic character of heroin was not an issue there was no reason, and no justification, for the admission of this evidence with the attendant danger of its misuse by the jury despite the cautionary instruction of the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Irvin““(1) The prosecution must prove every element of its case including the defendant’s knowledge of the narcotic character of the substance involved. “(2) To prove this element, prior or subsequent narcotic activity on the part of the defendant is sometimes admissible. “(3) The trial court has the discretion to allow the defendant to admit his knowledge of the narcotic nature of the object involved in the primary prosecution. ”(4) If the defendant stipulates to such knowledge, it is error to admit evidence of other narcotics activity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where evidence is properly admissible for a limited purpose only the courts recognize the danger that it may be improperly considered by the jury for other purposes [citation] but that is a risk which must ordinarily be taken if the evidence is admissible for some purpose, and a cautionary instruction limiting its use to the proper purpose is all the protection that the party can be given under the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.