Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 P2D 774 - Maiden v. State

Maiden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
October 1976
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1976

8 state decisions

40195419601970decided

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 88 Okla. Crim. 299 - Doser v. State · 88 Okla. Crim. 422 - Marvin Harris v. State · 85 Okla. Crim. 14 - Bunn 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““1. The general rule is that evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that accused has committed an offense other than that for which he is on trial and wholly independent thereof,, even though an offense of the same sort, is inadmissible, since accused must be convicted, if at all, by evidence-which, shows him to be guilty of the offense charged. .. “2, Under exception to general rule that accused must be convicted, if at all, by evidence showing him to be guilty of the offense charged, evidence of other offenses recently committed by accused, similar to the offense charged, is admissiblé when such evidence tends to establish á common scheme or plan, embracing the commission of two or more offenses so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, or when such evidence shows, or' fends to show guilty .knowledge or intent in the. com-,mi1 «ion of the offense charged. “3. Before evidence "of other offenses may'be admitted against the accused to, show a common scheme or plan or intent, such other alleged offenses must not be remote as to time and there must be a visible connection 'between such other alleged offenses and the charge alleged against the accused'in the information. “4. The fact that one person may commit similar crimes, does not justify the admission of "the other offenses if they are independent of each other. Where the trial court cannot clearly see a visible connection between 'the alleged other offenses to the one charged he s”
    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.