Garrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Our task in reviewing a district court’s decision on the admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence is to determine whether the district court abused its discretion, not to apply the Gleason/Vigil test anew.” Rolle v. State, 2010 WY 100, ¶ 17 , 236 P.3d 259, 269 (Wyo. 2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. State, 2015 WY 118 , 356 P.3d 767 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Gleason, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 18 , 57 P.3d at 340 ("We do not apply this test on appeal; rather, it is intended to be conducted by the trial court.”)). Under an abuse of discretion standard, we give the trial court’s ruling considerable deference and if “there exists a'legitimate basis for the trial court’s ruling, that ruling will mot be disturbed on appeal.” Hodge [v. State], 2015 WY 103 , ¶ 8, 355 P.3d [368] at 371 [ (Wyo. 2015) ] (internal quotation marks omitted). However, if the. trial court could not have reasonably concluded as it did, we will find an abuse of discretion. Bromley v. State, 2007 WY 20, ¶ 8 , 150 P.3d 1202, 1206-07 (Wyo. 2007). “In this context, ‘reasonably’ means sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without being arbitrary or capricious.” Id,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moser v. State · Swett v. State

2. “We recognize the danger that a course of conduct exception, standing alone, could swallow the general rule against admission of "other crimes, wrongs, or acts," and we emphasize that it must be linked to another legitimate purpose. Here, the identity of the arsonist was in dispute, and the course of conduct served to establish both motive and identity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moser v. State · Volpi v. State

3. “An after-the-fact application of the factors to evidence that has already been admitted to trial is not helpful or meaningful. The court is unlikely to find evidence anything other than admissible once it has already been admitted and the trial has concluded.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Broberg v. State · Volpi v. State