State v. DeWald’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably State v. Bolte (1995), State v. Blom (2004)
48 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 State v. Spreigl · State v. Billstrom · State v. Filippi · State v. Slowinski · State v. Norris
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the evidence [was] clear and convincing that [Blair] participated in the Spreigl offense[s], (2) that the Spreigl evidence [was] relevant and material to the state’s case, and (3) that the probative value of the Spreigl evidence [was] not outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Evidence of other crimes may not be received unless there has been notice to the defendant of the state's intention to introduce such evidence; (b) At the time the evidence is offered, the prosecutor must specify the exception to the general exclusionary rule under which it is claimed to be admissible; (c) If evidence of other crimes is received for purposes of identity rather than to show a common scheme or plan, there must nevertheless be some relationship in time, location, or modus operandi between the crime charged and the other offenses; (d) In order to admit other crimes evidence, the trial court must conclude that the direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant's identity is otherwise weak or inadequate, and that the evidence is necessary to support the state's burden of proof. It should be excluded where it is merely cumulative and a subterfuge for impugning defendant's character or for indicating to the jury that he is a proper candidate for punishment; (e) Both when the evidence is received and in its final instructions, the court should admonish the jury that the testimony is received for the limited purpose of establishing identity. It is the court's duty to advise the jury in unequivocal language that the defendant is not being tried and may not be convicted for any offense other than that charged, warning them that to convict for other offenses may result in unjust double punishment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shannon · State v. Bailey“[t]he natural and inevitable tendency of a * * * jury * * * to give excessive weight to the * * * crime thus exhibited, and either to allow it to bear too strongly on the present charge, or to take the proof of it as justifying a condemnation irrespective of guilt of the present charge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Frisinger
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.