State v. Burson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

191 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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hen the purpose of evidence of other acts is to show the absence of mistake or accident on the part of the defendant in committing the offense charged, it must be shown that a connection, in the mind of the defendant, must have existed between the offense in question and the other acts of a similar nature. See State v. Moore (1948), 149 Ohio St. 226 , 78 N.E.2d 365 . The other acts of the defendant must have such a temporal, modal and situational relationship with the acts constituting the crime charged that evidence of the other acts discloses purposeful action in the commission of the offense in question. The evidence is then admissible to the extent it may be relevant in showing the defendant acted in the absence of mistake or accident.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hill, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2007) · State v. Toland, Unpublished Decision (2-12-2007)

2. ““In any criminal case in which the defendant’s motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan, or system in doing an act is material, any acts of the defendant which tend to show his motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan, or system in doing the act in question may be proved, whether they are contemporaneous with or prior or subsequent thereto, notwithstanding that such proof may show or tend to show the commission of another crime by the defendant.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lytle · State v. Thompson

3. “[n]owhere do the words `like' or `similar' appear in the statute. Prosecutors and trial courts should be particularly aware that evidence of other acts of a defendant if admissible only when it `tends to show' one of the matters enumerated in the statute and only when it is relevant to proof of the guilt of the defendant of the offense in question.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Toland, Unpublished Decision (2-12-2007) · 49 Ohio App. 2d 7 - State v. Snowden