18 Cal. 4th 349 - People v. Kipp’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
265 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 278 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably 26 Cal. 4th 81 - People v. Catlin (2001), 20 Cal. 4th 936 - People v. Smithey (1999)
265 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 Strickland v. Washington · Morgan v. Illinois · 23 Cal. 3d 412 - People v. Pope · Tuilaepa v. California · 34 Cal. 3d 441 - People v. Dillon
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 278 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence that a defendant has committed crimes other than those currently charged is not admissible to prove that the defendant is a person of bad character or has a criminal disposition; but evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove, among other things, the identity of the perpetrator of the charged crimes, the existence of a common design or plan, or the intent with which the perpetrator acted in the commission of the charged crimes. [Citation.] Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to prove identity, common design or plan, or intent only if the charged and uncharged crimes are sufficiently similar to support a rational inference of identity, common design or plan, or intent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“properly direct[s] the jury to accept an interpretation of the evidence favorable to the prosecution and unfavorable to the defense only if no other 'reasonable' interpretation can be drawn. Particularly when viewed in conjunction with other instructions correctly stating the prosecution's burden to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, [this] circumstantial evidence instruction[ ] do[es] not reduce or weaken the prosecution's constitutionally mandated burden of proof or amount to an improper mandatory presumption of guilt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“must go beyond mere preparation, and it must show that the perpetrator is putting his or her plan into action.”
3 later decisions 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.