State v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Whether the intended purpose for offering the other acts evidence is relevant to some material issue in the case, and (2) Whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.”

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

2. “500 N.W.2d 243, 249 (S.D.1993) (Henderson, J., dissenting). One accused of a crime in South Dakota should be allowed [his] day in court and permitted to ask the jury to hear [his] story and decide [his] guilt or innocence. [His] hands should not be tied behind [his] back. In retrospect, it seems ironic that [those] accused in South Dakota should be forced to fight for their life to defend themselves against all other”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Larson

3. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident..”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Mattson