Grey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 130 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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general rule in Indiana for the admission of evidence of separate, independent, and distinct crimes to establish guilt of an accused is that such evidence is inadmissible except where relevant to show intent, motive, purpose, identification, and common scheme or plan, [citation omitted]. However, this Court has carved an exception for those acts involving or showing a ‘depraved sexual instinct.’ [citation omitted]. The basis for this exception is that in prosecutions for depraved acts ‘ * * * the prosecuting witness is not likely to be believed, since the evidence’ standing alone and entirely unconnected with anything which led to or brought it about, would appear * * * unnatural or improbable in itself.’ [citations omitted]. Thus, the evidence lends credence to the testimony of the prosecution that might otherwise be disbelieved, [citation omitted].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maynard v. State · McKim v. State

2. ““Detective Staub testified that the defendant also talked of having been involved in an incestuous relationship several years prior to this offense. Defendant contends that the admission of this testimony' was erroneous and argues that, due to his age at the time of the occurrence, the act was not a criminal one and also that it was too remote in time to be relevant. “While the defendant is correct that he could not have been convicted of a criminal offense, we nevertheless believe that the incident came within the purview of the above discussed exception to the general rule regarding the admission of evidence of other acts. We also note that the trial court has wide discretion regarding the exclusion of evidence for remoteness. Austin v. State [(1974) 262 Ind. 529 , 319 N.E.2d 130 ] supra. That substantial time had passed goes to the weight of the evidence but does not render it inadmissible. See, Garr v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 295 , 227 N.E.2d 171 .” 404 N.E.2d at 1353 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Omans v. State

3. “We also note that the trial court has wide discretion regarding the exclusion of evidence for remoteness. Austin v. State, [(1974) 262 Ind. 529 , 319 N.E.2d 130 ] supra. That substantial time had passed goes to the weight of the evidence but does not render it inadmissible. See, Garr v. State, (1967), 248 Ind. 295 , 227 N.E.2d 171 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fox v. State