State v. Gomes’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably State v. Bido (2008), State v. Breen (2001)
44 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 United States v. Bagley · People v. Kelley · United States v. Dellinger · State v. Jalette · United States v. Arruda
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““First, the evidence should be 'used sparingly and only when reasonably necessary. Jalette, 119 R.I. at 627 , 382 A.2d at 533 . Other-acts evidence should be excluded if it is merely cumulative. Id. Second, the evidence is only to be admitted when the exception is relevant to proving the charges lodged against the [respondent]. Id. Finally, a trial court should designate with particularity the specific exception to which the evidence is relevant and instruct the jury concerning the limited use for which the evidence is to be considered. Id. at 627-28 , 382 A.2d at 533” Gomes, 690 A.2d at 316-17 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The first prong is a four-part inquiry that requires that the evidence be (1) newly discovered since trial, (2) not discoverable prior to trial with the exercise of due diligence, (3) not merely cumulative or impeaching but rather material to the issue upon which it is admissible, (4) of the type which would probably change the verdict at trial. * * * Once this first prong is satisfied, the second prong calls for the hearing justice to determine if the evidence presented is ‘credible enough to warrant a new trial.’ ” Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brooks · State v. Firth“Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is usually considered so prejudicial that it is per se inadmissible regardless of any relevancy that it might have to show the propensity of a defendant to have committed the charged crime.”
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.