Saffor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 934 So. 2d 1248 - McLean v. State (2006), Sexton v. State (1997)
48 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 Rodriguez v. New York · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · 513 So. 2d 122 - State v. Fundora · 637 So. 2d 911 - Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Jenkins · State v. Rawls
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We hold ... that when the collateral sex crime and the charged offense both occur in the familial context, this constitutes a significant similarity for purposes of the Williams rule, but that these facts, standing alone, are insufficient to authorize admission of the collateral sex crime evidence. There must be some additional showing of similarity in order for the collateral sex crime evidence to be admissible. The additional showing of similarity will vary depending on the facts of the case and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Thus, we do not eliminate the requirement of similarity which undergirds the Williams rule. However, the strict similarity in the nature of the offenses and the circumstances surrounding their commission which would be required in cases occurring outside the familial context is relaxed by virtue of the evidence proving that both crimes were committed in the familial context.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Richman · Shipman v. State“unique characteristic or combination of characteristics which sets [it] apart from other offenses.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, but is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Sexton v. State · Gutherez 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.