State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur · 278 So. 2d 781 - State v. Moore · 345 So. 2d 474 - State v. Ledet · 340 So. 2d 1294 - State v. Gaines · 354 So. 2d 1007 - State v. Frentz
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This court has previously sanctioned the use of other crimes evidence to prove identity of the perpetrator through use of system. See State v. Moore , 278 So.2d 781 (La. 1972). The threshold requirement for admissibility is that the instant crime and the other offense constitute `signature crimes'. This requirement is satisfied if the `modus operandi of the (other) offenses is so peculiarly distinctive that one must logically say that they are the work of the same person, i.e., they are "signature crimes."'" (Citations omitted) State v. Davis , 389 So.2d 71 (La. 1980)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"to determine: (1) Is identity of the offender a real issue? and (2) Is there clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed the other offenses?" State v. Davis, 389 So.2d 71 at 73 (La., 1980).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis“... the `matter at issue' must be real and genuine, and not one which the prosecution conceives to be at issue merely because of the plea of not guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. James
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.