State v. Clingerman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Evidence of unrelated offenses is generally inadmissible under the statute. The requirements of the statute should be strictly enforced. To justify departure from this general inadmissibility the trial court should conduct a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine probative value as to one or more of the eight elements to which such evidence must be relevant, i. e. motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. When in the discretion of the court there is a pattern, similarity or connection between the facts surrounding the prior offense and the one with which the accused is presently charged which has relevance in proving specific matters in issue, the prior conviction may then be admitted.” (p. 488.)”

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

2. ““There is a presumption that a person intends all the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts. This presumption is overcome if you are persuaded by the evidence that the contrary is true.””

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

3. ““. . . On the basis of the record before us we must conclude that the prior conviction only tended to prove disposition to commit crime and it should not have been admitted in evidence in the present case. Its relevancy is questionable, its probative worth as to any of the eight statutory factors of proof is highly suspect, its prejudicial impact seems out of proportion to its probative value and confusion from proof of the prior crime may reasonably have resulted in prejudice to the defendant. (See State v. Motley, 199 Kan. 335 , 430 P. 2d 264 .) “When the trial court admitted evidence of this prior crime to prove all eight of the statutory factors of proof without considering how and in what way they might be relevant to prove the crime charged it abused its judicial discretion. The case must therefore be reversed and remanded for a new trial.” (p. 528.)”

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