State v. Edison’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Whittlesey v. State (1995), Conyers v. State (1997)
32 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 Laverick v. United States · Tichnell v. State · Ross v. State · Grandison v. State · State v. Faulkner
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]xceptions to the general rule are not limited to those noted in Ross; the Ross exceptions are not exclusive, (emphasis supplied).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We shall assume, for the purpose of decision, that the requirement of the first step—whether the evidence that relates to an offense separate from the offense the defen dant is presently on trial—here fits, as a matter of law, within one or more of the exceptions to the general “other crimes” rule.... With the exception of [one] charge, a scanning of the evidence adduced readily shows that it was clear and convincing with respect to Edison’s involvement in the other charges in the indictments. So this appeal settles down to the requirement of the third step. Even if the requirements of steps one and two are satisfied, [t]he necessity for and probative value of the “other crimes” evidence is to be carefully weighed against any undue prejudice likely to result from its admission. ... This requirement “implicates the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.” (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““First, he may become embarrassed, or confounded in presenting separate defenses____ Secondly, the jury may cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if the offenses are considered separately, it would not do so. At the very least, the joinder of multiple charges may produce a latent hostility, which by itself may cause prejudice to the defendant’s case. Thirdly, the jury may use the evidence of one of the crimes charged, or a connected group of them, to infer criminal disposition on the part of the defendant from which he may also be found guilty of other crimes charged.””
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.