Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 834 SW2D 110 - Nelms v. State

Nelms v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2000
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 180th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Montgomery v. State · Geesa v. State · Harris v. State · Butler 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The evidence about drug dealing was not relevant to any issue in the case and was calculated to prejudice the jury by referring to extraneous matters for which appellant was not on trial. [[Image here]] The State elicited the evidence from two witnesses and referred to it during closing arguments. The evidence that people wearing beepers deal in drugs, together with the prosecutor’s closing argument that appellant had no job requiring a beeper, conveyed to the jury an extraneous matter showing other criminal conduct: appellant was a drug dealer because he wore a beeper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The testimony was inadmissible evidence of extraneous criminal conduct under rule 404(b). This evidence invited the jury to convict appellant of possession because he was a drug dealer in general ... The evidence about drug dealing was not relevant to any issue in the case and was calculated to prejudice the jury by referring to extraneous matters for which appellant was not on trial. We hold it was error to admit the evidence under rule 404(b).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.