State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably State v. Echols (1998), 120 Ohio App. 3d 320 - State v. Wills (1997)
108 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 Chapman v. State of California · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · State v. Lytle · State v. Curry · State v. Burson
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In any criminal case in which the defendant's motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme, plan, or system in doing an act is material, any acts of the defendant which tend to show his motive or intent, the absence of mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant's scheme, plan, or system in doing the act in question may be proved, whether they are contemporaneous with or prior or subsequent thereto, notwithstanding that such proof may show or tend to show the commission of another crime by the defendant.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“challenged evidence plays an integral part in explaining the sequence of events and is necessary to give a complete picture of the alleged crime.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(Tr. at 222.) {¶ 22} On appeal, appellant raises Evid.R. 404(B), which provides: 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. {¶ 23} Thus, as a general rule, evidence of previous or subsequent criminal acts, wholly independent of the criminal offense for which a defendant is on trial is inadmissible. However,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.