Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 P.2d 39 - Bewley v. State

Bewley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2024

11 state decisions

501965197019801990200020102020decided

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 Roulston v. State · McCluskey v. State · McMahan v. State · 85 Okla. Crim. 376 - Fitzgerald v. State

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

  1. ““ ‘The difficulty concerning this type of evidence does not lie in the understanding of the rule, but in the application thereof. “ ‘It further appears that in the application of the exceptions to the rule greater latitude is allowed in the admissibility of this class of evidence in some types of crime which by their peculiar nature involve the question of intent, guilty knowledge and scheme and plan such as embezzlement, . . .(Citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““However, evidence of separate and similar offenses is admissible when it is material and proper to show (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) identity of person charged with the commission of the crime for which an accused is put on trial, and (5) common scheme or plan embracing the two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “‘Cross-examination to impeach, diminish, or impair the credit of the witness is not confined to matters brought out on the direct examination. The witness may be cross-examined as to collateral matters not embraced in the direct examination to test credibility and veracity.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.