Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 Ga. App. 301 - King v. State

230 Ga. App. 301 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2016

24 state decisions

100199820002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Williams v. State · Humphrey v. State · State v. Johnson · Bethay v. State

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

  1. “Indeed, "the test of admissibility of evidence of other criminal acts by the defendant is not the number of similarities between the two incidents. Rather, such evidence may be admitted if it is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character." [Cit.] "Similarity is an important factor in determining the admissibility of the extrinsic crime; however, it is not the only factor, nor is it necessarily the controlling factor. The ultimate issue for admissibility is whether the evidence of other crimes has relevance to the issues in the trial of the case at bar. Depending on the purpose for which the extrinsic evidence is offered, the State may be required to prove a high degree of similarity between the relevant characteristics of the extrinsic crime and the crime charged, or it may have only the burden of showing a logical connection between the crimes which are essentially dissimilar. [Cit.]" [Cit.] [12]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “permitting similar transaction evidence to be admitted to show a propensity to commit criminal acts in general or a certain type crime in particular”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Under our law, however, that is not a permissible basis for introducing similar transaction evidence. [Cit.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.