Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rounsaville v. State · 96 Ark. App. 385 - Ross v. State

2. “This court has allowed modus operandi evidence in some cases. In Burmingham [v. State, 342 Ark. 95 , 27 S.W.3d 351 (2000)], one of the “blue-light rapist” cases, the court found that “comparing this witness’s testimony to the events described by S.W., it appears that appellant performed his rapes following the same modus operandi on both victims.” Burmingham, 342 Ark. at 108 . The court then listed the similarities of the two incidents. In Jacobs v. State, 287 Ark. 367 , 699 S.W.2d 400 (1985), this court allowed evidence of prior bad acts in an automobile breaking-and-entering case because the “similarity of method used to enter the vehicle is remarkable and the vehicles were all on the parking lot at McCain Mall.” Id., 287 Ark. at 369 . In Frensley [v. State, 291 Ark. 268 , 724 S.W.2d 165 (1987)], the court, after listing the similarities, allowed evidence of a prior crime in an aggravated robbery and kidnaping case stating: Both actions were committed in the same unique fashion. Further, the two acts were so unique and uncommon that they became distinctive and identifying. The two acts establish a method of operation. The inference is clear, there were not two different robbers. Frensley, 291 Ark. at 274 . This court, however, at times has found that the level of evidence was insufficient to meet the requirements under the modus oper-andi exception. In Diffee [v. State, 319 Ark. 669 , 894 S.W.2d 564 (1995)] the court determined that the defendant’s attempted attack with an ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Ark. App. 447 - Medlock v. State

3. “The degree of similarity between the circumstances of prior crimes and the present crime required for admission of evidence under Rule 404(b) is a determination that affords considerable leeway to the trial judge, and may vary with the purpose for which the evidence is admitted. See 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 112, n. 4 and accompanying text (2d ed. 1994) (“To be probative, prior criminal acts must require an intent similar to that required by the charged crime, although it is usually said that the prior crime need not closely resemble the charged crime.”); 1 John W Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 190, n. 31 and accompanying text (4th ed. 1992) (“The similarities between the act charged and the extrinsic acts [admitted to show the act charged was not performed inadvertendy, accidentally, involuntarily, or without guilty knowledge] need not be as extensive and striking as is required ... [to show modus operandi]”).”

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