513 So. 2d 916 - Shaw v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

cited by 4 later decisions

states following

March 2005

most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 451 So. 2d 743 - Neal v. State · Brown v. State · 242 So. 2d 865 - Brooks v. State · 497 So. 2d 440 - Robinson v. State · Turner v. State

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

“[p]roof of another crime is admissible where the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so interrelated as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences. Such proof of another crime is also admissible where it is necessary to identify the defendant, where it is material to prove motive, and there is an apparent relation or connection between the act proposed to be proved and that charged, where the accusation involves a series of criminal acts which must be proved to make out the offense, or where it is necessary to prove scienter or guilty knowledge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 912 So. 2d 730 - Hodges v. State
“... such evidence is admissible where offenses are so interrelated as to constitute a single occurrence or closely related occurrences; where the separate offense is material to prove motive and is apparently connected to that which is charged; ... Where evidence of another crime forms part of a transaction of which the crime charged is so intimately connected therewith that one cannot be proven without some proof of the other, the evidence is admissible. Page v. State, 369 So.2d 757 (Miss. 1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 530 So. 2d 146 - Brock v. State
“Generally, evidence of other crimes separate and distinct from that charge in the indictment is inadmissible.... However, such evidence is admissible where offenses are so interrelated as to constitute a single occurrence or closely related oc-currences_ Where evidence of another crime forms part of a transaction of which the crime charged is so intimately connected therewith that one cannot be proven without some proof of the other, the evidence is admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Hartfield v. State

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.