672 So. 2d 197 - State v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Johnson v. United States (1996), 976 So. 2d 109 - State v. Lee (2008)
37 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 Huddleston v. United States · Johnson v. United States · 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur · 664 So. 2d 94 - State v. Johnson · 625 So. 2d 146 - State v. Jackson
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except as provided in Article 412, 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, absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes, or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a pattern and intent or `lustful disposition' on defendant's part to force women, with either a knife or through strangulation and brute force, to engage in nonconsensual sex.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“|19We find that the time between the other crimes evidence and the offense charged is but one factor to be considered when balancing probative value, prejudicial effect and relevancy. Length of time between the offenses should not exclude otherwise admissible evidence unless the lapse strips the testimony of probative value. While there must be some connexity between the crime charged and the other acts or crimes, the mere passage of time will not necessarily defeat admissibility. However, such a determination must be made on a case by case basis taking into account the peculiar facts of every individual case with much discretion given to the trial judge. State v. Cupit, [ 189 La. 509 , 179 So. 837 (1938)] supra; State v. Driggers, supra [ 554 So.2d 720 (La.App. 2 Cir.1989) ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.