State v. Otto’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “id. ¶ 23, it erred in rejecting the evidence as proof of Defendant's intent, see id. ¶ 22. {15} For those reasons, we cannot characterize the trial court's admission of the grooming evidence as clearly untenable or not justified by reason, and thus hold that it was properly admitted under Rule 11-404(B). B. The Grooming Evidence was Admissible under Rule 11-403 NMRA {16} Defendant argues that, even if the grooming evidence was admissible under Rule 11-404(B), it should have been excluded under Rule 11-403 as unfairly prejudicial. Rule 11-403 states that otherwise relevant evidence”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sena

2. “[e]vidence 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 for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Branch

3. “[T]he prosecution had the right to introduce evidence to show that [the d]efendant's actions were intentional and not committed accidentally or by mistake.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Sena