Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The admission or rejection of evidence is not a matter of judicial grace. It is a legal right. To be admissible, evidence must logically tend to prove a material fact. Accordingly, evidence of prior crimes is generally inadmissible in a criminal case, because it has no tendency to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused. . . . Evidence of prior crimes is admissible, however, if it is relevant to some issue in the case, such as intent, motive, knowledge, plan, identity, or credibility. . . . The admissibility of prior convictions in such cases is justified only by their relevance to the issues. The undesirable tendency to prejudice remains, but the overriding interests of the State in arriving at the truth prevails."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spearman v. State · Landis v. State

2. “"In the present case, Johnson's prior acts of violence have a single nexus-albeit an important nexus-the victim, Florence Stokes. But the earlier crimes are not tangibly connected to each other or to the present crimes. They are not unusual, distinctive, or similar to each other or to the present beating, abduction, and threat in any way. Nothing indicates Johnson's crimes arose out of a common plan or scheme. Instead, it would appear that they all arose out of separate, distinct crisis situations in the on-going saga of Johnson's and Stokes's "off and on" romantic relationship. All the incidents are separated by significant periods of time. [[Image here]] Today, we will not allow evidence that Johnson has the propensity to beat Stokes to prove a present beating." Id. at 170-71 .”

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

3. “romantic relationship. All the incidents are separated by significant periods of time. [[Image here]] Today, we will not allow evidence that Johnson has the propensity to beat Stokes to prove a present beating.”

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