2007 WI App 175 - State v. Dukes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “inextricably intertwined with the crime.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 384 Wis. 2d 632 - State v. Hobbick · 386 Wis. 2d 630 - State v. Walker

2. “(1) Is the other acts evidence offered for an acceptable purpose under [ WIS. STAT. §] 904.04(2), such as establishing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident? (2) Is the other acts evidence relevant, considering the two facets of relevance set forth in [ WIS. STAT. §] 904.01 ? The first consideration in assessing relevance is whether the other acts evidence relates to a fact or proposition that is of consequence to the determination of the action. The second consideration in assessing relevance is whether the evidence has probative value, that is, whether the other acts evidence has a tendency to make the consequential fact or proposition more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (3) Is the probative value of the other acts evidence substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence? See [ WIS. STAT. §] 904.03.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 385 Wis. 2d 848 - State v. Norwood

3. “The question of admissibility of evidence generally lies within the trial court's discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 385 Wis. 2d 848 - State v. Norwood