Watts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

117 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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general rule in Indiana for the admission of evidence of separate, independent, and distinct crimes, in establishing the guilt of a defendant, is that such evidence is inadmissible except to show intent, motive, purpose, identification, or a common scheme or plan. Zimmerman v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 537 , 130 N. E. 235 ; Gears v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 380 , 180 N. E. 585 , Hergenrother v. State (1939), 215 Ind. 89 , 18 N. E. 2d 784 . . .” (Our Emphasis.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Meeks v. State · Kindred v. State

2. ““The Court instructs the Jury that it is the law of this State that a defendant may never be proven guilty of one offense by proving the commission of other crimes. Evi dence has been introduced in the trial of this cause as to certain other similar offenses which the State claims to have been committed by the defendant Herman Woods, with the prosecuting witness, Sandra Woods, and other female persons. “You are instructed that you are to bear in mind, gentlemen of the jury, that the offenses charged in the indictment herein are the sole and only crimes with which the defendant is charged in this case, and in arriving at a verdict in this case you are in no wise to determine or consider the guilt or innocence of the defendant with reference to any evidence of other similar offenses that have been offered in evidence in this cause by the State of Indiana. “The Court instructs you, gentlemen of the Jury, that you are only permitted to consider the evidence with reference to any other similar offenses, if shown by the evidence, in the event you first find as a fact beyond every reasonable doubt from the other evidence given in the trial of this cause that the said Herman Woods did at the place, date and time as set forth in these instructions commit the offenses as charged in either or both counts of the indictment herein, then and only then are you permitted to consider the evidence with reference to other similar offenses if any, offered in evidence; and in the consideration of”

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

3. ““ ‘Appellants also object to the introduction of certain evidence relating the commission of other and separate crimes from the one charged in the indictment. * * * It has been uniformly held that when the act constituting the crime has been established, then any evidence tending to show motive, intent, or guilty knowledge, if in issue, or any evidence which directly or, as a natural sequence, tends to show the defendant guilty of the crimes charged, is competent although it tends to show him guilty of another and distinct offense. It is the probative value of such evidence to prove the crime charged that makes the evidence admissible and not the fact that it proves or tends to prove the defendant guilty of other crimes. Underhill v. State (1916), 185 Ind. 587 , 114 N.E. 88 ; Gears v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 380 , 180 N.E. 585 ; Zimmerman v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 537 , 130 N.E. 235 . “ ‘Where the circumstances surrounding the offenses other than that charged are of a similar nature, showing use of similar or peculiar instrumentalities in the commission of each offense, or employment of a uniform scheme or method, evidence of such offenses is both relevant and material and is admissible as having probative force to prove the defendant guilty of the particular crime charged. Peats v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 560 , 12 N.E.2d 270 ; Gears v. State, supra; Dotterer v. State (1909), 172 Ind. 357 , 88 N.E. 689 .’” (Quoting from Smith v. State (1939), 215 Ind. 629, at 634-35 , 21 N.E.2d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Ind. App. 343 - Gubitz v. State