Longfellow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) The proof of the other similar crimes must be plain, clear, and convincing. “(2) The other crimes must not be too remote in time from the charged offense. “(3) The evidence of the other crimes must be introduced for a purpose sane- tioned by Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence [identical to Wyoming Rule 404(b) ]. “(4) The element of the charged offense that the evidence of other crimes is introduced to prove must be a material issue in the case. “(5) There must be a substantial need for the probative value of the evidence of the other crimes.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dean v. State · Brown v. State

2. “(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. Brown v. State · Suliber v. State

3. “The state elicited both specific instances of abuse of Valerie and general testimony regarding appellant’s temper. Our required review of prior precedent leads us to the factually-similar case of Grabill v. State, 621 P.2d 802 (Wyo.1980). In Grabill , the victim’s mother went grocery shopping and left the victim at home with her boyfriend. When she returned, she found a bruise on the baby’s right ear. The comatose baby was taken to a hospital where it was discovered that she had suffered brain damage from a blow to the head. At the boyfriend’s trial for child abuse, the prosecution presented testimony concerning his prior abuse of other children from his two marriages. We found this “prior bad acts” evidence admissible under W.R.E. 404(b) because of its relevance to the question of intent and of which of two persons inflicted the injury- the defendant or the victim’s mother. Grabill, 621 P.2d at 810 . The same concerns are present in this case: identity and intent. The prosecution needed to establish whether appellant or Brad Longfellow was responsible for the crimes against Christopher. This put “identity” at issue. The prosecution also needed to establish “intent” for purposes of the “intentionally or recklessly” requirement of the child abuse statute, W.S. 6-2-503(a)(ii) (Cum.Supp.1987). We hold that the testimony regarding abuse of Valerie was properly entered into evidence for purposes sanctioned by Rule 404(b). Appellant argues that since second degree murder is a gener”

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