State v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “For the prior conduct to fall' within the identity exception, there must be more than mere similarity between the crime charged and the uncharged crime. The charged and uncharged crimes must be nearly ‘identical’ and them methodology ‘so unusual and distinctive’ that they resemble a ‘signature’ of the defendant’s [or his accomplice’s] involvement in both crimes.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Cecil Russell McBenge · State of Missouri v. Brian Keith McBenge

2. “[w]hen the evidence is merely that another person had opportunity or motive to commit the offense, or the evidence is otherwise disconnected or remote and there is no evidence that the other person committed an act directly connected to the offense, the minimal probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its tendency to confuse or misdirect the jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rieser · State v. Wright

3. “Generally, a defendant may introduce evidence tending to show that another person committed the charged offense, unless the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its costs, such as undue delay, prejudice or confusion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bowens