State v. Faulkner’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
188 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Merzbacher v. State (1997), Klauenberg v. State (1999)
188 state decisions
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 Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · United States v. Dion · Payne v. Wood · Tichnell v. State · Ross 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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of other crimes may be admitted, however, if it is substantially relevant to some contested issue in the case and if it is not offered to prove the defendant’s guilt based on propensity to commit crime or his character as a criminal.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage““other crimes” evidence, even though independently and substantially relevant to some contested issue, may be excluded if its probative value is exceeded by potential jury hostility or unfair prejudice. The leeway of this discretion lies in the direction of excluding otherwise admissible evidence____ A decision to admit other crimes evidence which is clearly incorrect “ ‘on this question of balancing probative value against danger of prejudice will be corrected on appeal as an abuse of discretion.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) the defendant’s presence at the scene or in the locality of the crime on trial; (b) that the defendant was a member of an organization whose purpose was to commit crimes similar to the one on trial; (c) the defendant’s identity from a handwriting exemplar, “mug shot,” or fingerprint record from a prior arrest, or his identity through a ballistics test; (d) the defendant’s identity from a remark made by him; (e) the defendant’s prior theft of a gun, car or other object used in the offense on trial; (f) that the defendant was found in possession of articles taken from the victim of the crime on trial; (g) that the defendant had on another occasion used the same alias or the same confederate as was used by the perpetrator of the present crime; (h) that a peculiar modus operandi used by the defendant on another occasion was used by the perpetrator of the crime on trial; (i) that on another occasion the defendant was wearing the clothing worn by or was using certain objects used by the perpetrator of the crime at the time it was committed; (j) that the witness’ view of the defendant at the other crime enabled him to identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime on trial.”
2 later decisions 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.