State v. Kornegger’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently February 1993 · most notably State v. Bernard (1993), State v. Smith (1968)
106 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 State v. King · State v. Garrison · State v. Richardson · State v. Scott · State v. Palmberg
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where the proof of other offenses may tend to establish motive, or intent, or absence of accident or mistake, or identity of the defendant, or a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of separate similar offenses so interrelated to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, such other offenses are widely held under these circumstances to be admissible in proof. State v. Garrison, 342 Mo. 453 , 116 S.W.2d 23, 24 . And similarly, the exception is often recognized in prosecutions for crimes involving sexual relations such as adultery, incest, sodomy, seduction, rape and lewdness. State v. Richardson, 349 Mo. 1103 , 163 S.W.2d 956 ; State v. King, 342 Mo. 975 , 119 S.W.2d 277 ; State v. Henderson, 243 Mo. 503 , 147 S.W. 480 ; State v. Scott, 172 Mo. 536 , 72 S.W. 897 . In 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 691, page 1160, it is said: 'In the case of crimes involving illicit sexual relations or acts, other acts of the same character may ordinarily be shown, not as proof of independent substantive offenses, but as corroborative evidence to show a disposition upon the part of accused and as tending to support the specific offense for which he is being tried.’ See authorities there cited. See also, State v. Cason, Mo.Sup., 252 S.W. 688 , and cases there cited. In State v. King, supra ( 342 Mo. 975 , 119 S.W.2d 283 ), we held: ‘In these cases (thereinabove cited) prior (and in some jurisdictions, subsequent) acts of the same kind between the accused and the prosecutrix”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith“In the case of crimes involving illicit sexual relations or acts, other acts of the same character may ordinarily be shown, not as proof of independent substantive offenses, but as corroborative evidence to show a disposition upon the part of the accused and as tending to support the specific offense for which he is being tried.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. DAR
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.