Wynn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes. (a) Character evidence. (1) Prohibited uses. Subject to subsections (a)(2) and (3) of this Rule, evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with the character or trait on a particular occasion. (2) Criminal and delinquency cases. Subsection (a)(2) of this Rule applies in a criminal case and in a delinquency case. For purposes of subsection (a)(2), “accused” means a defendant in a criminal case and an individual alleged to be delinquent in an action in juvenile court, and “crime” includes a delinquent act as defined by Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-01. (A) Character of accused. An accused may offer evidence of the accused’s pertinent trait of character. If the evidence is admitted, the prosecution may offer evidence to rebut it. (B) Character of victim. Subject to the limitations in Rule 5-412, an accused may offer evidence of an alleged crime victim’s pertinent trait of character. If the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. (C) Homicide case. In a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. (3) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness with regard to credibility may be admitted under Rules 5-607, 5-608, and 5-609. (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crime”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ridgeway v. State · Burris v. State

2. ““Our examination of the commentators and the case law both in Maryland and in other jurisdictions that we have discussed reveals a general prerequisite to the application of the absence of mistake exception. In order for the exception to apply, the defendant generally must make some assertion or put on a defense that he or she committed the act for which he or she is on trial, but did so by mistake. In those cases noted above in which the exception was found not to apply, the defendant made no assertion or put forward no defense that he or she mistakenly committed the act for which he or she was on trial.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 Md. App. 486 - Cousar v. State · Boyd v. State

3. “that he entered the house mistakenly or that the housebreaking was a mistake ... petitioner did not assert that he mistakenly entered the Quigley residence and took the items at issue believing that he had a right to do so. Petitioner did not assert that he had stumbled mistakenly into the Quigley premises. Rather, petitioner asserted that he did not commit the acts with which he was charged.” 351 Md. at 331 , 718 A.2d 588 . 10 . In Wynn , the Court of Appeals stated,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 Md. App. 486 - Cousar v. State · Johnson v. State