State v. Elmore’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2021
12 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 Luce v. United States · Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation · Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. · Belisle v. Anzivino · State v. Cherry
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One permissible approach, advocated by the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is to allow the prosecutor to ask the witness about the existence of a prior similar conviction under Rule 609(a)(l)[, SCRE] without disclosing to the jury the nature of the prior offense. See United States v. Boyce, 611 F.2d 530 , 531 n. 1 (4th Cir.1979). The Boyce approach was approvingly referenced by our supreme court in Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428 , 433 n. 5, 527 S.E.2d 98 , 101 n. 5 (2000). The Boyce approach still requires a meaningful balancing of the probative value and prejudicial effect before admission of the prior conviction, although the prejudice occasioned by the similarity of the prior crime to the crime charged is removed. Id. at 239 n. 5, 628 S.E.2d at 276 n. 5.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brayboy“While Coif involved the admission of prior convictions more than ten years old under Rule 609(b), SCRE, this court has implicitly recognized the value of these factors in making such a determination under Rule 609(a)(1), and urged the trial bench to not only articulate its ruling, but also provide the basis for it, thereby clearly and easily informing the appellate courts that a meaningful balancing of the probative value and the prejudicial effect has taken place as required by Rule 609(a)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Howard
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.