Downer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Continuances are granted under the authority of Indiana Trial Rule 53.4. Where the request is based on a nonstatu-tory ground, as here, the granting of the motion is within the discretion of the trial court. Denial of the motion is reversible error only where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion. Aron v. State, (1979) Ind., 393 N.E.2d 157 ; Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1005 , U.S. cert. denied 444 U.S. 944 , 100 S.Ct. 302 , 62 L.Ed.2d 312 ; Miller v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 635 , 372 N.E.2d 1168 . In order to demonstrate an abuse of that discretion, the appellant must show he suffered prejudice as a result of the denial of the continuance. Schalkle v. State, (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 384 ; Vaughn v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 142 , 378 N.E.2d 859 . The trial court is not required to grant a motion for continuance merely because it complies with the rules of procedure but may look to the circumstances of the case as well as the allegations made in the motion. Drollinger v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1228 ; Keys v. State, (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 148 ; Miller, supra. Continuances to allow more time for preparation are not favored and should be granted only with a showing of good cause and in furtherance of justice. Keys, supra; Miller, supra.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simmons v. State · Walker v. State

2. “[T}he general rule is evidence of prior crimes committed by a defendant, separate and distinct from the one he is charged with committing, is inadmissible to prove commission of the present crime. Appellant concedes it is well established such evidence is admissible where it tends to prove intent, motive, purpose, identification, or common scheme or plan. Howell v. State, (1980) Ind., 413 N.E.2d 225 ; Henderson v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 1088 . This Court has held admission of evidence of a defendant's prior drug dealings to show a common scheme or plan to engage in drug peddling is proper. Manuel v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 436 , 370 N.E.2d 904 . See also, Haynes v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 659 ; Perry v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 393 N.E.2d 204 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gaines v. State