Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ejvidence offered under Rule 404(b) must be independently relevant to make the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Kelley [v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 3731 supra. In other words, the prior bad act must be independently relevant to the main issue, in that it tends to prove some material point rather than merely proving that the defendant is a criminal. Id. Evidence may be independently relevant if it shows motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. See Bragg v. State, 328 Ark. 613 , 946 S.W.2d 654 (1997).... In addition, we have held that evidence may be relevant in connection with other facts to form a link in the chain of evidence necessary to support a party’s contention. Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187 , 119 S.W.3d 485 (2003). Furthermore, testimony can be relevant if it provides the necessary context for other evidence.”

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

2. “[e]vidence 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.”

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