Pena v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The probity of evidence of other crimes where introduced for this purpose depends upon both the uniqueness of the modus operandi and the degree of similarity between the charged crime and the uncharged crime. Of course, it is not necessary that the charged crime and the other crimes be identical in every detail. But they must possess a common feature or features that make it very likely that the unknown perpetrator of the charged crime and the known perpetrator of the uncharged crime are the same person. The more unique each of the common features is, the smaller the number that is required for the probative value of the evidence to be significant. But a number of common features of lesser uniqueness, although insufficient to generate a strong inference of identity if considered separately, may be of significant probative value when considered together.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dean v. State · Germany v. State

2. “(1) The prosecution put on sufficient testimony to “plainly, clearly, and convincingly prove” the prior bad acts, at least to the extent required for their admission under Rule 404(b). A total of four witnesses, including Officer Glick, testified to appellant’s abuse of Valerie. (2) The instances were not too remote from the date of the alleged abuse of Christopher to lack probative value or to be unfairly prejudicial to appellant. They occurred within two years prior to the circumstances of this case. (3) The elements of identity and intent were very much at issue in this case. (4) The prosecution had a substantial need for the probative value of the evidence of the prior bad acts, because of the circumstantial nature of its case against appellant and because of the existence of two possible suspects.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Longfellow v. State · Suliber v. State

3. “(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. — 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
   e.g. Pino v. State · Suliber v. State