Dant v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character or of general moral character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same.... ⅜ ⅝ ⅜ (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible: (1) If offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident; or (2) If so inextricably intertwined with other evidence essential to the case that separation of the two (2) could not be accomplished without serious adverse effect on the offering party. The Kentucky Supreme Court has held: A trial court has the discretion to admit evidence of prior bad acts as long as that evidence is relevant, probative, and the potential for prejudice does not outweigh the probative value of such evidence .... The exceptions stated in KRE 404(b)(1) provide an illustrative list of when prior bad act evidence can be relevant not to prove the criminal disposition of the accused, but rather, to prove that the defendant actually committed the crime charged.... One exception that has been recognized by Kentucky courts to admit p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Douglas v. Commonwealth

2. “that a photograph, otherwise admissible, does not become inadmissible simply because it is gruesome and the crime is heinous.... "Were the rule otherwise, the state would be precluded from proving the commission of a crime that is by nature heinous and repulsive.... Where the photographs reveal[ ] nothing more than the scene of the crime and the person[ ] of the victim[ ], they [a]re not incompetent."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Commonwealth

3. “for a prior bad act to be admitted to show a pattern of conduct, the facts surrounding the prior misconduct must be so strikingly similar to the charged offense as to create a reasonable probability that (1) the acts were committed by the same person, and/or (2) the acts were accompanied by the same mens rea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Douglas v. Commonwealth