41 Cal. 3d 388 - People v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably 11 Cal. 4th 694 - People v. Medina (1995), 47 Cal. 3d 983 - People v. Edelbacher (1989)
5 federal appellate · 71 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Fare v. Michael C. · 35 Cal. 3d 547 - People v. Beeman · 70 Cal. 2d 522 - People v. Ireland
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order for evidence of a prior crime to have a tendency to prove the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the charged offense, the two acts must have enough shared characteristics to raise a strong inference that they were committed by the same person. It is not enough that the two acts contain common marks: `[T]he inference of identity arises when the marks common to the charged and uncharged offenses, considered singly or in combination, logically operate to set the charged and uncharged offenses apart from other crimes of the same general variety and, in so doing, tend to suggest that the perpetrator of the uncharged offenses was the perpetrator of the charged offenses.' [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he [prior act and the charged offense] must have enough shared characteristics to raise a strong inference that they were committed by the same person.... It is not enough that the two acts contain common marks.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McKinney v. M Rees K“when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity ...) other than his or her disposition to commit such a crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McKinney v. M Rees K
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.