People v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Vincent Joseph SPOTO (1990), Tevlin v. People (1986)
42 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 Kotteakos v. United States · Shepard v. United States · People v. Lowe · People v. Lucero · Callis v. People
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[r]elevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In resolving an issue of relevancy, a court must first ask whether the proffered evidence relates to a fact “that is of consequence to the determination of the action,” CRE 401 — in other words, whether the preferred [sic] evidence is legally material to some factual issue in the case. If this question is answered in the negative, the evidence is simply inadmissible as having no bearing whatever on any issue, in the case. If this initial question is answered in the affirmative, the next question centers on the matter of logical relevancy. The appropriate inquiry here is whether, as provided in CRE 401, the evidence makes the existence of a consequential fact “more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” If the proffered evidence is not logically relevant, the inquiry is at an end and the evidence should not be admitted. If, on the other hand, the evidence is logically relevant to a consequential fact, a third question must then be addressed — that is, whether under CRE 403 the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
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.