State v. Featherson’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably State v. Killpack (2008), State v. Decorso (1999)
36 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 Huddleston v. United States · In re Martin-Trigona · Goldstein v. United States · City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc. · Figueroa v. United States
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 36 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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“It can be safely assumed that [a judge in a bench trial, acting as a trier of fact] will be somewhat more discriminating [than a jury] in appraising both the competency and the effect properly to be given evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[I]t was error to admit evidence of the prior convictions and prior incidents [because] they were too remote. The prior rape conviction in 1979 and the incidents [of assault] in 1977 and 1978 occurred nine or more years prior to the trial. The two convictions of aggravated assault in 1983], four years earlier,] were likewise too remote to demonstrate any common scheme or pattern. Remoteness refers to the time between the prior crime and the offense for which the accused is on trial, but the test for remoteness is not a mechanical application. The relevant inquiry is whether the other acts have "clearly probative value with respect to the intent of the accused at the time of the offense charged."”
3 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.