State v. Stephenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule against the admissibility of evidence of other similar but independent offenses should always be strictly enforced, and to justify any departure therefrom the evidence should come under one of the well-recognized exceptions to the general rule, among which are identity of the person committing the offense, to prove scienter or guilty knowledge, to prove intent, to show inclination or motive, to prove plan, scheme or system of operation, and to rebut a special defense.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wright · State v. Bly

2. “"Proof of an independent crime is admissible in the discretion of the court, and may be received in the state's case in chief, under proper instructions, if it is relevant to the proof of the guilt of the defendant for the crime with which he is charged. To be relevant it must prove or tend to prove identity of person or crime, to prove scienter or guilty knowledge, to prove intent, to show inclination or motive, to prove plan, scheme, or system of operation and to prove malice. ( State v. Myrick, 181 Kan. 1056 , 317 P.2d 485 .) The legislature recognized the exceptions to the general rule, as contended by defendant, in enacting chapter 303, section 60-455, Laws of 1963. The mentioned rules, exceptions and statutes were thoroughly discussed in the well -annotated opinion of State v. Wright, 194 Kan. 271 , 398 P.2d 339 ..." (l.c. 262.) (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lewis · State v. McCorvey

3. ““The well-recognized general rule prevailing in this and other jurisdictions is that evidence is inadmissible to prove that the accused has been convicted of another crime independent of, and unrelated to, the one on trial; it is not competent to prove one crime by proving another. (State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767, 774 , 37 Pac. 174 ; State v. Wheeler, 89 Kan. 160 , 130 Pac. 656 ; State v. Frizzell, 132 Kan. 261 , 295 Pac. 658 ; State v. Owen, 162 Kan. 255 , 176 P. 2d 564 ; State v. Winchester, 166 Kan. 512, 514, 515 , 203 P. 2d 229 ; State v, Fannan, 167 Kan. 723 , 207 P. 2d 1176 ; State v. Palmer, 173 Kan. 560 , 251 P. 2d 225 ; State v. Aldrich, 174 Kan. 335 , 225 P. 2d 1027 ; 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law § 682, p. 1084; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, § 494, p. 428.) All evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant, and the general rule is based upon the principle that evidence of an unrelated prior conviction is irrelevant to prove the offense charged, and has a tendency to prejudice the minds of the jury against the accused and to predispose them to a belief in his guilt. Further, that evidence of a prior conviction, when offered in the state’s case in chief, violates the rule of policy which forbids the state initially to attack the character of the accused, and that which prohibits proof of bad character by particular acts (1 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 12th ed. § 232, p. 492.) The rule against the admissibility of such evidence should be strictly enforced. (State v. Frizzell, supra, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Minor