Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 720 P2D 957 - Bolden v. State

Bolden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 36 Cal. 3d 77 - People v. Tassell · 20 Cal. 3d 457 - People v. Thomas · Lerchenstein v. State · Burke v. State · Moor v. State

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To say that the defendant had a “plan” to seduce every runaway he could may not do violence to the language [of Rule 404(b),] but it does undermine the policy of Rule 404(b) by permitting the use of propensity to prove conduct. [In order for evidence of prior crimes to] be properly admissible under Rule 404(b)[,] it is not enough to show that each crime was “planned” in the same way; rather, there must be some overall scheme of which each of the crimes is but a part.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision 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.