Elkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In a criminal proceeding, when the State seeks admission of an extraneous or similar transaction committed by the accused which constitutes a separate criminal offense, introduction of that ‘extraneous offense’ transaction is inherently prejudicial, since the accused has no notice he will be called to defend against it, and his ‘propensity to commit crimes’ is not material to whether he is guilty of the specified conduct which is charged by the State. Bates v. State, 643 S.W.2d [939] 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Rubio v. State, 607 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Sanders, supra; Murphy, supra, and cases cited there. “Evidence of other crimes committed by the accused may be admitted, however, where such evidence is shown to be both material and relevant to a contested issue in the case.” Albrecht, supra, at p. 100 . (Emphasis supplied.) See also Rubio v. State, 607 S.W.2d 498, 506 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson v. State · Ingham v. State

2. “‘[Tjhese evidentiary principles, as most, must in some circumstances give way. For extraneous transactions constituting offenses shown to have been committed by the accused (note omitted) may become admissible upon a showing by the prosecution both that the transaction is relevant to a material issue in the case; and, the relevancy value of the evidence outweighs its inflammatory or prejudicial potential.’ [Emphasis in original].”

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