State v. Christopherson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The bad act testimony in this case was admissible to prove a plan or a common scheme to develop situations which allowed Christopherson to have sexual contact with young boys. First he would pick out an impressionable boy in his early teens. Christopherson always picked boys whose parents he knew or could get friendly with, making it more difficult for the boy to confide with his parents. Christopherson then used his role as an authority figure (teacher, supervisor or family friend) to work the boy into a situation where Chris-topherson was alone with him and able to have sexual contact. In each case Christo-pherson would tell the boy to keep it a secret. Christopherson would play off the desires or insecurities of the boy by promising a car, praying to God for forgiveness, or promising to get the boy out of special education. Christopherson never asked any of the boys to do anything to him.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Osier · State v. Ondricek

2. “An abuse of discretion has been defined by this Court as a decision which is not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence. We will not reverse a decision if `we believe a judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances, could reasonably have reached that conclusion.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moeller · Weisbeck v. Hess

3. “[W]e have chosen not to set a rigid time limitation when determining whether bad acts are too remote. “Whether pri- or acts are too remote must realistically depend on their nature.” This case involves allegations of sexual abuse of young children who were members of the defendant’s family. Taking into account the shame and fear often experienced by victims of abuse and the fact that victims of molestation are children, lengthy delays in reporting abuse, much less testifying to it in open court, are not surprising. The record indicates Ondri-cek’s status as a family member further compounded his victims’ reluctance to come forward; they feared any disclosures would be disbelieved or would destroy family ties. Additionally, Ondri-cek had to create opportunities during which he could abuse his victims.... Consequently, the nature of Ondricek’s acts, and the manner in which he operated, required his sexual improprieties be spread out over time.”

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