176 Ohio App. 3d 1 - State v. Yenser’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2024
10 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 State v. Graham · State v. Thompson · State v. Williams · State v. Brown
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court, in determining whether prior acts should be admitted, must balance the interests of the victim, which the statute is designed to protect, and the defendant's right to confront and cross-examine the state's witnesses. State v. Williams (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 33 , 21 OBR 320, 487 N.E.2d 560 . If the evidence in question is merely being used to impeach the victim's credibility, it is not of probative value as to the alleged rape itself and should not be admitted. Id. However, if the evidence has probative value to the determinative issue of fact -- i.e., whether the victim was raped by the defendant on the date alleged -- then the probative value of the testimony outweighs any interest the state has in exclusion. Id. at 36 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kaufman“any error will be deemed harmless if it did not affect the accused's `substantial rights.'”
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.