Rafferty v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2011
10 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 Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Yagow v. United States · Bush v. Florida · Lannan v. State · Bieghler 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The evidentiary rulings of a trial court are afforded great deference and are reversed on appeal only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible when offered to prove the character of a person or show action in conformity therewith ... The effect of this rule, then, is that evidence is excluded to prove the "forbidden inference" of demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit the charged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct which is probative of the defendant's motive and which is "inextricably bound up" with the charged crime is properly admissible under Rule 404. An analysis of admissibility under Rule 404(b) necessarily incorporates the relevancy test of Rule 401 and the balancing test of Rule 408. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. The trial court has the discretion to admit even marginally relevant evidence. Only where the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence will that evidence be excluded. The trial court has wide latitude in weighing the probative value of the evidence against the possible prejudice of its admission. We review the trial court's balancing dec”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State · Boyd v. State“the remaining evidence against [Rafferty] comes down to a credibility contest”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Granger 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.