76 Ohio App. 3d 290 - State v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 91 Ohio App. 3d 141 - State v. McCornell (1993), 111 Ohio App. 3d 840 - State v. Goines (1996)
31 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 State v. Lytle · State v. Eley · State v. DeMarco · State v. Jamison · State v. Burson
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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, or absence of mistake or accident.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Id. Over objection, the trial court admitted the testimony after instructing the jury the testimony could only be used for the limited purpose of determining whether the element of force, or threat of force, had been established to support a conviction for gross sexual imposition. Id. {¶ 23} On appeal, this court determined the trial court should have excluded the victim's testimony regarding Henderson's alleged past sexual misconduct. In so holding, this court found the prerequisites necessary to admit other act evidence under R.C. 2945.59 and Evid.R. 404(B) were”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ward“the victim testified that the defendant had had relations with her eight years prior to the time complained of in the indictment. The court found that the isolated act was too remote in time to be admissible under R.C. 2945.59 , and also found the evidence inadmissible because the act took place in an entirely different setting and time.”
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.