State v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably State v. Leisure (1990), State v. Roberts (1992)
28 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 State v. Degraffenreid · State v. Harris · State v. Singh · State v. Walker · State v. Hamilton
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, evidence explaining evidence previously introduced or showing that the inference arising or sought to be drawn therefrom is not warranted, is admissible. State v. Ford, 639 S.W.2d 573, 576 (Mo.1982). This rule is especially applicable where accused seeks to explain incriminating evidence introduced by the State. Id. See 2 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 276(4)(e)(1979) (A party may rebut adverse inferences from his conduct by evidence indicating it to be consistent with reasons other than consciousness of guilt); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 163 (1964) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Taylor“[e]rror, which in a close case might call for reversal may be disregarded as harmless when the evidence of guilt is strong.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Long
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.