Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 1983 · most notably Alford v. State (1954), Cary v. State (1976)
28 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 Yelvington v. State · Williams v. State · Melton v. State · Beck v. State · Walker v. State
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a general rule, it must appear that the evidence of other offenses relate to offenses that occurred shortly before or after the commission of the. offense for which the accused is being tried... It would be difficult to lay down any rule fixing the time of the commission of the collateral offenses before or after the commission of the crime for which the party is being tried. All the checks that were introduced in this case were competent, because they tended to show a system of operating from the date of the first check continuously to the date of the check for the forgery for which he was being tried. # # * Moreover, this class of evidence must be limited within such a period that it may naturally be seen to throw light as to the intent with which the act under investigation was committed; and the question of time during which other acts may be proved seems to be largely within the trial court’s discretion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dickerson v. State““Evidence of similar forgeries is admissible to show a uniform course of acting from which guilty knowledge and criminal intent may be inferred. In other words, the evidence of other forgeries is admissible, not to prove the commission of the crime for which the party is being tried, but to prove guilty knowledge or intent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tolbert v. State
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.