State v. Morrell’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance (1991), State v. Williams (1997)
28 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Fletcher v. Weir · Bullock v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. · State v. Tillman · State v. Eldredge
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Testimony concerning the prior robbery was the only evidence, other than defendant’s and [the victim’s] conflicting testimony, bearing on whether defendant’s intent was to rob [the victim] or merely to secure payment of money defendant believed he was owed. The testimony, then, was clearly prejudicial to defendant. It was, however, extremely probative of defendant’s intent during the incident with [the second victim]. The two robberies for which defendant was charged occurred within months of each other. Each manifested an almost identical factual pattern.... The state had a great need to present this evidence to demonstrate intent; no effective alternative proof was available_ [Admission of the evidence was proper under Rule 404(b) and not barred by Rule 403[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Lee · State v. Lomu“You have heard evidence relating to acts at a Maveri[k] Store on June 6, 2010, which occurred after the acts charged in this case. You may consider this evidence, if at all, for the limited purpose of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident. This evidence was not admitted to prove a character trait of the defendant or to show that he acted in a manner consistent with such a trait. Keep in mind that the defendant is on trial for the crime charged in this case, and for that crime only. You may not convict a person simply because you believe he may have committed some other act at another time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Lomu“[i]n view of the liberality with which motions to withdraw guilty pleas are to be granted prior to sentence ... we see real difficulty, for Rule 609(a)(2) purposes, in equating a mere guilty plea, prior to sentencing, with an actual conviction.” Id. 3 . Section 68-3-11 also states that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Duncan
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.