Gilstrap v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Mullins v. State (1998), Hamilton v. State (2001)
75 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 173 Ga. App. 254 - Cooper v. State · Rich v. State · 182 Ga. App. 480 - Sears v. State · Williams v. State · Womack 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Womack v. State, 260 Ga. 21, 22 (4) ( 389 SE2d 240 ) (1990), we quoted from Sears v. State, 182 Ga. App. 480, 482 ( 356 SE2d 72 ) (1987), as follows: “The purpose of a statute of (limitation) is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanction. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. ...” A like rationale applies to the admission of “similar transaction” evidence, and is the basis for excluding evidence of events that are [too] remote in time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pareja v. State“where similar transaction evidence has been admissible otherwise, lapses of time of 11 years and of 19 years have not demanded that the evidence was inadmissible. Further[,] the lapse of time between the prior occurrences and the offenses charged goes to the weight and credibility of such testimony, not its admissibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“raises a substantial possibility that the jury could have settled upon the guilt of the defendant based solely upon evidence of a large number of similar transactions, and before hearing a single witness to the indicted offenses.”
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.