People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In a criminal prosecution any attempted intimidation of a witness is properly attributable to a consciousness of guilt, and testimony relating thereto is relevant and admissible in evidence.” People v. Bloom, 370 Ill. 144 , 18 N.E.2d 197, 199 (1938); People v. Smith, 3 Ill.App.3d 958 , 279 N.E.2d 512 (1972). See also State v. Adair, 106 Ariz. 4, 6 , 469 P.2d 823 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Clancy · State v. Valenzuela

2. ““If for the sake of argument we construe the ‘scuffling’ with the ax at the very least to be an intimidation of the complaining witness and at the very most an attempt to remove her as a witness, such conduct is indeed evidence then of consciousness of guilt from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged. Consciousness of guilt is very potent evidence of just that, and ‘nothing but an hallucination or a most extraordinary mistake will otherwise explain its presence.’ (II Wigmore on Evidence 106, section 273(1).) Of course, if the conduct sought to be admitted bears no relationship to the offense charged it would be the duty of the court to reject such evidence, but not otherwise. Specifically here, if it can be said, and we think it can, that defendant’s conduct was an attempt at the very least to suppress evidence by intimidation, then a very clear inference can be drawn that defendant was conscious that he was guilty of the offense charged.” Smith, 3 Ill. App. 3d at 960 , 279 N.E.2d at 513 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 402 Ill. App. 3d 736 - People v. Abernathy

3. ““Countless Illinois decisions establish that evidence of other crimes is properly admissible to prove identity, intent, knowledge, or a common scheme or plan [citations] * * The same decisions, People v. Spaulding, 309 Ill. 292 , 141 N.E. 196, at 303-304 , in particular, require us to reject the further contention of defendant that in order for evidence of other offenses to be admissible, it must first be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused committed such offenses.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 Ill. App. 3d 870 - People v. Parker