Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 S.C. 473 - State v. Thompson

State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 1977
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1977

3 state decisions

10195719601970decided

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 State v. Lyle · State v. Gregory · State v. Browning · State v. Phillips · State v. Center

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

  1. ““The general rule is that evidence that the accused has committed another crime independent of, and unconnected with, the one on trial is inadmissible. 22 C. J. S. Criminal Law § 682, p. 1084. And especially is this true where the other offense is remote in time. To this rule there are certain exceptions. However, as stated at 22 C. J. S. Criminal Law § 683, p. 1091, ‘the general rule should be strictly enforced, in all cases where applicable, because of the prejudicial effect and injustice of such evidence, and should not be departed from except under conditions which clearly justify such a departure; so, these exceptions should be carefully limited, and their number and scope not increased.’ “The recognized exceptions are set forth in the cases of State v. Gregory, 191 S. C. 212, 4 S. E. (2d) 1 , and State v. Lyle, 125 S. C. 406, 118 S. E. 803, 807 , as follows: ‘Evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial.’ ””
    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.