State v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The court upon request must hold a • hearing outside the jury’s presence; • (2) The court must determine that a material issue exists other than conduct conforming with a character trait" and must upon request state on the record the material issue, the ruling, and the reasons for admitting the evidence; (3) The court must 'find proof of the other crime, wrong, or act to be clear and convincing; and (4) The court must exclude the evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Prince Adams · State of Tennessee v. Perry Avram March

2. “Rule 403 is a rule of admissibility, and it places a heavy burden on the party seeking to exclude the evidence. Ex- eluding relevant evidence under this rule is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly and persons seeking to exclude otherwise admissible and relevant evidence have a significant burden of persuasion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Robinson · State of Tennessee v. Dale Keith Larkin

3. “[I]n the [c]ourt’s mind, there ... are material issues that exist here. [W]e’ve had voir dire and opening statements about [the- defendant] being “petted,” ... into discussing these, [Mr, Parris] pushed [the defendant] into this crime, they were imaginary plans, angry people just talking. . And, more importantly] ... the [s]tate obviously has to prove intent, had to discount these ■ defense arguments that are being proposed[,] ... but they have to prove that [the defendant] had the intent, culpable mental state, being intentionally to carry out these particular crimes, both the conspiracy and the solicitation_ [[Image here]] [W]hy else would he be doing this, other than he has Mr. March’s statements and discussion about how he’s gonna [sic] be taken care of. [[Image here]] I mean, it, to' the [c]ourt, goes to showing that seriousness or the intent issues that the [s]tate has to prove and shows the relationship -between these parties, in that -... if it doesn’t come in, ,.. then I suppose the scenario that’s left is, well, Mr. Farris is gonna [sic] do this conspiracy out of the. goodness of his heart and, once it’s done, do what? Just live happily ever after in.Nashville, .1 guess. [[Image here]] In weighting, that, the probative nature of that particular information and whether that probative value is outweighed by the danger Of unfair prejudice, I will say this:" I don’t think the transcripts do that at all. [I] don’t think, out of an abundance of caution, that it should be ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Perry Avram March