Crook v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The rules concerning evidence of prior offenses are complex, and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they can be summarized broadly. Because such evidence is generally recognized to have potentiality for prejudice, it is usually excluded except when it is particularly probative in showing such things as intent, Nye & Nisson v. United States, 336 U.S. 613 , 69 S.Ct. 766 , 93 L.Ed. 919 , Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117 , 282 S.W.2d 393 ; an element in the crime, Doyle v. State, 59 Tex.Cr.R. 39 , 126 S.W. 1131 ; identity, Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 197 , 319 S.W.2d 115 ; malice, Moss v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 389 ; motive, Moses v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 409 , 328 S.W.2d 885 ; a system of criminal activity, Haley v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 519 , 223 S.W. 202 ; or when the defendant has raised the issue of his character, Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 , 69 S.Ct. 213 , 93 L.Ed. 168 ; Perkins v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 321 , 213 S.W.2d 681 ; or when the defendant has testified and the State seeks to impeach his credibility, Giacone v. State, 124 Tex. Cr.R. 141, 62 S.W.2d 986 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur