Echols v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 165 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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[U]nder this rule, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible to prove motive. We have said that, when the purpose of evidence is to show motive, anything and everything that might have influenced the commission of the act may, as a rule, be shown. Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917 , 936 S.W.2d 509 (1996); Cooper v. State, 324 Ark. 135 , 919 S.W.2d 205 (1996). The State is entitled to produce evidence showing circumstances which explain the act, show a motive for killing, or illustrate the accused’s state of mind. Echols v. State, supra; Smith v. State, 310 Ark. 247 , 837 S.W.2d 279 (1992).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thessing v. State · Barrett v. State

2. “... The prosecutor’s subpoena power granted under the statute was passed by the General Assembly to implement the power of prosecutors to bring criminal charges by information. Cook v. State, 274 Ark. 244 , 623 S.W.2d 820 (1981). It was designed to take the place of questioning by a grand jury. Kaylor v. Fields, 661 F.2d 1177 (8th Cir. 1981). The emergency clause to the statute states that it was enacted to enable prosecutors to “properly prepare criminal cases.” Cook v. State, 274 Ark. at 248 , 623 S.W.2d at 822 . The prosecutor may use the subpoena power to investigate and prepare for trial as long as the power is not abused. Todd v. State, 283 Ark. 492 , 678 S.W.2d 345 (1984). However, we will reverse a case in which a prosecutor abuses the subpoena power. Foster v. State, 285 Ark. 363 , 687 S.W.2d 829 (1985); Cook v. State, 274 Ark. at 249 , 623 S.W.2d at 823 .”

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

3. “[O]ur holdings provide that a jury may generally refuse to believe a defendant’s mitigating evidence, but when there is no question about credibility and, when, in addition, objective proof makes a reasonable conclusion inescapable, the jury cannot arbitrarily disregard that proof and refuse to reach that conclusion. Here the jury was faced with neither indisputable credibility nor objective proof that made a reasonable conclusion inescapable. To the contrary, there was substantial evidence of Echols’s history of prior criminal activity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Howard v. State · Hill v. State