Sanchez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably State v. Carr (2014), Teniente v. State (2007)
30 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 Sheppard v. Maxwell · Estes v. Texas · Rideau v. Louisiana · Herring v. New York · Barakat v. Life Insurance
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Als long as there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court's ruling, that ruling will not be disturbed on appeal.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. BALDES v. State · Counts v. State“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Leyva v. State · Ferguson v. State“In future cases involving the admissibility of evidence under W.R.E. 404(b), the record shall reflect the trial court's identification of the purpose or purposes for admission of the evidence, the findings and conclusions establishing relevance and probative value, and the factors considered in balancing probative value against the potential for unfair prejudice. The "shotgun approach" of listing every conceivable purpose for admissibility, followed by a bald statement that probative value outweighs prejudicial effect will no longer be sufficient. While the trial court need not make an express finding on every factor ... the record must contain sufficient findings to support the trial court's conclusions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leyva 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.