State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

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

1. “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
   e.g. State v. Kirsh · 806 So. 2d 697 - State v. Temple

2. “I think this particular case is distinguishable from the State versus Quest case that defense counsel has cited and—and—to the extent that the Quest case was an attempt to use an admission by the defendant that he was a drug user or user of heroin. In this particular case, that is not the evidence. The evidence is that the defendant possessed marijuana at a time closely in proximity to the arrest that— that is the subject of this particular case before us today. To accept the defense argument would essentially exclude any evidence of a prior possession of a drug by a person who subsequently is arrested and on trial for possession of that drug with intent to distribute. And I don't believe that that was the intent of the Quest case to go that far. I think it was—in my reading, it—it intended simply to avoid the evidence of use by the defendant because use had no other relevance other than to show that the defendant was a bad person; whereas, in this particular case, the relevance is to show knowledge of—on the part of the defendant that he knew what marijuana was. So the Court is going to allow the introduction of the other crimes evidence, and that being the arrest on January 25 of 2002 of the defendant, William Cash, in South Carolina for the charge of possession of marijuana. The Court is going to, however, restrict any testimony by the State's witnesses to that particular crime or other act and will not allow testimony of the— of any other crimes or any other acts by the d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 861 So. 2d 851 - State v. Cash

3. “This court has approved the admission of other crimes evidence when it is related and intertwined with the charged offense to such an extent that the state could not have accurately presented its case without reference to it. In such cases, the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place. The concomitant other crimes do not affect the accused's character, because they were done, if at all, as parts of a whole; therefore, the trier of fact will attribute all of the criminal conduct to the defendant or none of it. And, because of the close connection in time and location, the defendant is unlikely to be unfairly surprised. [Citations omitted].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kirsh