Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably Smith v. State (2003), Barrett v. State (2003)
52 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 Gaines v. State · Thomas v. State · Burmingham v. State · Strawhacker v. State · Clem v. State
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court has further made it clear that if the introduction of testimony of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is independently relevant to the main issue — relevant in the sense of tending to prove some material point rather than merely to prove that the defendant is a criminal — then evidence of that conduct may be admissible with a proper cautionary instruction by the court. Clem v. State, 351 Ark. 112 , 90 S.W.3d 428 (2002). Thus, if the evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is relevant to show that the offense of which the appellant is accused actually occurred and is not introduced merely to prove bad character, it will not be excluded. Id. Stated another way, the test for establishing motive, intent, or plan as a Rule 404(b) exception is whether the evidence of the other act has independent relevance. Burmingham v. State, 342 Ark. 95 , 27 S.W.3d 351 (2000); Haire v. State, 340 Ark. 11 , 8 S.W.3d 468 (2000). See also Burley v. State, 348 Ark. 422 , 73 S.W.3d 600 (2002) (prior bad acts independently relevant to prove motive in not contacting police); Williams v. State, 343 Ark. 591 , 36 S.W.3d 324 (2001) (prior crime independently relevant as proof of intent to commit charged offenses); Eliott v. State, 342 Ark. 237 , 27 S.W.3d 432 (2000) .(escape conviction was not used to show appellant’s character, but was independently relevant to show his consciousness of guilt of the rape offenses).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. State
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.