State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Artis (1989), State v. Al-Bayyinah (2002)
78 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 State v. McClain · State v. McClain · State v. DeLeonardo · State v. Boyd · State v. Cotton
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of other crimes must be connected by point of time and circumstance. Through this commonality, proof of one act may reasonably prove a second. However, the passage of time between the commission of the two acts slowly erodes the commonality between them. The probability of an ongoing plan or scheme then becomes tenuous. Admission of other crimes at that point allows the jury to convict defendant because of the kind of person he is, rather than because the evidence discloses, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed the offense charged.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“severely attenuated [and] `substantially negate[s] the plausibility of the existence of an ongoing and continuous plan to engage persistently in such deviant activities.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[EJvidence of prior sex acts may have some relevance to the question of a defendant’s guilt of the crime charged if it tends to show a relevant state of mind such as intent, motive, plan, or opportunity. See State v. Boyd, 321 N.C. 574 , 364 S.E.2d 118 (1988); State v. Gordon, 316 N.C. 497 , 342 S.E.2d 509 (1986); State v. DeLeonardo, 315 N.C. 762 , 340 S.E.2d 350 (1986). Such evidence is not offensive to the general prohibition against character evidence because it is admitted not to prove defendant acted in conformity with conduct on another occasion but rather as circumstantial proof of defendant’s state of mind. State v. Weaver, 318 N.C. 400 , 348 S.E.2d 791 (1986). Indeed, . . . we have stated that “evidence of other offenses is admissible so long as it is relevant to any fact or issue other than the character of the accused.” [Citation omitted.] * * * Nonetheless, the admissibility of evidence of a prior crime must be closely scrutinized since this type of evidence may put before the jury crimes or bad acts allegedly committed by the defendant for which he has neither been indicted nor convicted.”
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.