Fields v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2014
20 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 Houltin v. United States · Cities Service Co. v. United States · McClain v. State · State v. Chaney · Love 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“person reasonably believes it is necessary for self defense against what the person reasonably believes to be the use of unlawful force by the other[.]” 3 . Lamont's failure to claim that he believed Lott to be armed is not significant, since Lamont would have been entitled to use deadly force to protect himself against any form of robbery; Lott could have committed either a first- or second-degree robbery of Lamont without using a deadly weapon. See AS 11.41.500(a)(3); AS 11.41.510. Thus, Lamont could reasonably have feared an imminent robbery, even if he knew that Lott was unarmed. 4 . The state also charged Lamont with three counts of furnishing alcohol to minors. Lamont did not contest the alcohol charges during his trial. 5 . “[I]t is normally required that in order to be admissible on the issue of intent the prior misconduct of the accused must be similar to the crime charged and not too remote in time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lamont v. State“We wish to caution, as we have in the past, that the prosecution should take great care to inform its witnesses not to refer to other unrelated crimes the defendant may have committed, especially where, as here, a pro tective order has been issued against mention of another criminal charge. Where such evidence does inadvertently come before the jury, the trial court’s determination upon a motion for mistrial will be given deference on review. While it might have been better for the court here to have given a cautionary instruction to the jury concerning the questioned portion of Detective Curwen’s testimony, it is not important in the context of this case, in view of our holding that the error in allowing that testimony to remain in evidence was harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hancock 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.