Abdnor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2018
16 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 Almanza v. State · Arline v. State · Humason v. State · Williams v. State · McCambridge v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Defense Counsel]: What we’re objecting to, Your Honor, is the testimony, in effect, brings in extraneous matters and extraneous offenses: to-wit, assault, from the witness, which would be inadmissible for general purposes in this ease, in that it would show — it would have a tendency to show that the Defen dant is a criminal generally, and it is not really admissible on any issue in the trial. ... [I]t affects the state of mind of the witness, and its prejudice far outweighs any relevance of materiality of the testimony. Basically, it is an extraneous offense: it’s not relevant to the actual issues in this case. The State is only offering it for a limited purpose, and the prejudice outweighs its materiality. THE COURT: Overruled. ⅜ * ⅜ ⅜ * ⅝ [Defense Counsel]: And I would also request that, as this testimony comes in, immediately after the witness makes the statements ... the Judge instruct the jury, specifically, that the testimony is admitted only for the purposes of how it affects the credibility of the witness, and it’s not to be considered for any purpose whatsoever as to whether or not the Defendant is guilty of the offense charged. THE COURT: Okay. Denied at this time. I’ll take that up when we take up the Charge. Prior to its submission to the jury, appellant objected to the court’s charge for its failure to limit the jury’s consideration of the extraneous offenses. Appellant offered several proposed charges for the trial court’s consideration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Abdnor v. State · Abdnor v. State“That bitch really screwed up this time ... if she walked through that door right now, I'd blow her head off. I'd just blow her right up against the wall.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Abdnor v. State“is never admissible merely to encourage the inference that an accused is probably guilty because he committed other crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Parmer v. State
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.