Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 326 N.C. 457 - State v. Jeter

State v. Jeter’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. Moore (1994), State v. Cummings (1992)

46 state decisions

220199020002010decided

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. Coffey · State v. McClain · State v. McClain · State v. Cotton · State v. Price

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

  1. “its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Rule 404(b)] includes no requisite that the evidence tending to prove defendant's identity as the perpetrator of another crime be direct evidence, exclusively. Neither the rule nor its application indicates that examples of other provisions — such as admissibility of evidence of other offenses to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, or plan — rest solely upon direct evidence. E.g., State v. Price, 326 N.C. 56 , 388 S.E.2d 84 (1990) (circumstantial evidence of defendant's perpetration of "virtually identical" strangulation, proximate in time, showing preparation, plan, knowledge or identity). Under the statutory scheme of Rules 403 and 404, the concern that anything other than direct evidence of a defendant's identity in a similar offense might "mislead [the jury] and raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt" is met instead by the balancing test required by Rule 403[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “`[w]here ... such evidence reasonably tends to prove a material fact in issue in the crime charged, it will not be rejected merely because it incidentally proves the defendant guilty of another crime,' but only if the sole logical relevancy of that evidence is to suggest defendant's predisposition to commit the type of offense with which he is presently charged.”
    3 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.