State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The exceptions recognized * * * permit the reception of evidence of other crimes to prove (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or system of criminal activity embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related that proof of one tends to prove the other, or (5) identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jeffs · State v. Howell

2. ““ * * * The general principle is that evidence to show the commission of crimes other than the one with which a defendant stands charged is inadmissible. * * * [citing authorities] “There are a number of recognized exceptions to this exclusionary rule which permit the use of otherwise prohibited evidence if it tends to prove an element of the crime for which the defendant is then on trial, even though it also — incidentally-—• establishes the commission of another offense. We cite only several of the numerous cases which support this rule. * * * [citing authorities].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Clay · State v. Fetters

3. “We should discuss separately the only exception which could possibly permit the introduction of the disputed evidence— the existence of a common scheme, plan, or system. It is not enough that the defendant committed other crimes of the same nature unless in some way each has a bearing on the other. [Authorities.] Assuming the evidence shows what the State claims for it, the most that can be said is that defendant first stole soybeans from one of the other farms and, being successful, was emboldened to engage in other thefts until he ultimately came under suspicion. Nowhere is there any suggestion that one crime was dependent upon or connected with any of the others. Each was, under this record, a separate and independent crime. It appears beyond dispute that the State- sought to introduce evidence of other crimes to persuade the jury that a person who had stolen soybeans on several prior occasions was very likely to have stolen them on this occasion also — the very rationale the rule is designed to guard against.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Howell