State v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably State v. O'CONNELL (1979), State v. Duncan (1981)
26 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · State v. Monroe · 57 Ala. App. 529 - McDonald v. State · State v. Wright · State v. Johnson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e have recognized the general principle that evidence which shows commission of crimes other than the one with which a defendant is charged is inadmissible. We have also recognized exceptions permitting such evidence when it tends to prove (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or system of criminal activity embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related that proof of one tends to prove the other, or (5) identity of the person charged with commission of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Howell“We do not believe the legislature intended the furnishing of drugs to a paramour to be legally equivalent to selling them for profit or to induce addiction. Instead, this case presents a plain situation of accommodation. The fact the jury could find defendant and Edington were involved in an exchange of favors is insufficient to permit a finding that-the drug deliveries were something more than furnishing, “as a favor to the recipient, something the recipient desires.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cobb“The basic standard by which other crimes evidence is tested is relevancy. However, even when such evidence has some relevancy the trial court must exercise discretion to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cuevas
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.