State v. Spencer’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently April 2001 · most notably 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur (1973), 345 So. 2d 1129 - State v. Bennett (1977)
2 federal appellate · 85 state decisions
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 Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · State v. Martin · State v. Montegut · State v. Welch · State v. Shuff
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When knowledge or intent forms an essential part of the inquiry, testimony may be offered of such acts, conduct or declarations of the accused as tend to establish such knowledge or intent and where the offense is one of a system, evidence is admissible to prove the continuity of the offense, and the commission of similar offenses for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge and intent, but not to prove the offense charged.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Montegut · State v. Isaac“"* * * the jurisprudence of our state and of the majority of other jurisdictions appears to define crimes of a `system' as those acts and offenses which are of a like nature and exhibit like methods or plans of operation. * * *"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““During his opening statement defense counsel began to argue the law of the case relative to burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and failure of defendant to take the stand. When the judge informed counsel that he must confine his opening statement to what he intended to prove and should reserve his argument on the law for the jury at the end of the case, counsel moved for a mistrial. The motion was overruled, and Bill of Exception No. 5 was reserved. “This court held under former R.S. 15:333 (Article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1928), which defined the scope of the defendant’s opening statement that if counsel for defendant elected to make an opening statement, it was to be confined to an explanation of the defense and the evidence which would be used in an attempt to prove the defense. Wide discretion was vested in the trial judge in his control of the opening statement to confine it within these limits. State v. Shuff, 198 La. 67 , 3 So.2d 278 ; State v. Boone, 227 La. 850 , 80 So.2d 710 . Our present Code of Criminal Procedure fails to lay down rules for the "defendant’s opening 'statement. Articles 766 et seq. apply only to the State.' We are of the opinion that this jurisprudence concerning the defendant’s opening statement remains the law and is applicable. We therefore hold that defense counsel who avails himself of the opportunity to make an opening statement under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 765(4) must confine his remarks to an explanation of the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bell
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.