174 Or. App. 294 - State v. Bracken’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Does the present charged act require proof of intent? "(2) Did the prior act require intent? "(3) Was the victim in the prior act the same victim or in the same class as the victim in the present case? "(4) Was the type of prior act the same or similar to the acts involved in the charged crime? "(5) Were the physical elements of the prior act and the present act similar? "(6) If these criteria are met, is the probative value of the prior act evidence substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jury, undue delay or presentation of cumulative evidence?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 240 Or. App. 338 - State v. Leistiko

2. “[I]f uncharged misconduct evidence is not offered to prove intent or absence of mistake, the Johns analysis is inapplicable as a basis for determining the relevance of the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 240 Or. App. 338 - State v. Leistiko