813 So. 2d 710 - Simmons v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
December 2015
most recently cited
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 667 So. 2d 1242 - Ballenger v. State · 697 So. 2d 777 - Coleman v. State · 671 So. 2d 581 - Walker v. State · 637 So. 2d 871 - Perry v. State · 607 So. 2d 1171 - Jenkins 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 20 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Usually, evidence of another crime or prior bad act is not admissible. Ballenger v. State , 667 So.2d 1242 , 1256 (Miss. 1995). However, this Court has held that evidence or proof of a prior crime or bad act is admissible where it is necessary to show identity, knowledge, intent, motive or to prove science. Wheeler v. State , 536 So.2d 1347 , 1352 (Miss. 1988); Carter v. State , 450 So.2d 67 (Miss. 1984); Robinson v. State , 497 So.2d 440 , 442 (Miss. 1986). See also M.R.E. 404(b). Evidence of other *Page 1269 crimes or bad acts is also admissible in order to tell the complete story so as not to confuse the jury. Brown v. State , 483 So.2d 328 , 330 (Miss. 1986). In the case at bar, evidence of the prior physical altercation between Wilkerson and Simmons was not offered to show Simmons's character. The evidence was presented as an integral part of the story for the purpose of showing intent and establishing motive. This Court in Ballenger stated: Even where evidence of other crimes is admissible under M.R.E. 404(b), it cannot be admitted unless it also passes muster under M.R.E. 403. Ballenger , 667 So.2d at 1257 . Upon admitting the evidence under M.R.E. 404(b), the Court must still consider the admission of the evidence in connection with M.R.E. 403. Stallworth v. State , 797 So.2d 905 , 910 (Miss. 2001); Ballenger , 667 So.2d at 1257 . M.R.E. 403 provides for the exclusion of evidence, even if it is relevant, where the risk of undue prejudice would outweigh the evidence's ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones 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.