Armstrong v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. .. Further, ‘[ejvidence that is admissible for one purpose is not rendered inadmissible simply because it coincidentally discloses or suggests other criminal activity.’ Samuels v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 676, 680 , 372 N.E.2d 1186, 1188 . Evidence which suggests other criminal acts may nevertheless be admissible to show the identity of the perpetrator of the charged crime. E. g., Norton v. State (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 514 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 . In addition, evidence of this type may be admissible if it also shows ‘acts, statements, occurrenc es and circumstances substantially contemporaneous with the crime charged.’ Lee v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 315, 320 , 370 N.E.2d 327, 329 . See Norton v. State, supra; McCabe v. State, (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 895, 897-98 . In the case before us, appellant Armstrong was charged with relieving Miss Green of her automobile by the use of threat of force. Thus, evidence tending to subsequently connect Armstrong with the automobile would have been highly relevant on the issue of identity. Obviously, the closer the connection which could be shown, the greater the probative value regarding appellant’s involvement in the crime. In this case, the prosecution had evidence which placed Armstrong and the car at virtually the identical location — in or near the Jackson, Mississippi jail — near the same time. Moreover, this location was several hundred miles from the scene of the robbery and confinement. This evidence cl”

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

2. “"[Elvidence that is admissible for one purpose is not rendered inadmissible simply because it coincidentally discloses or suggests other criminal activity."”

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