85 Okla. Crim. 376 - Fitzgerald v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1983
10 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 People v. . Sharp · People v. Coffey · People v. Glass · 107 Ohio St. 475 - Scott v. State · State v. Sweeney
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The difficulty concerning this type of evidence does not lie in the understanding of the rule, but in the application thereof. “ ‘It further appears that in the application of the exceptions to the rule greater latitude is allowed in the admissibility of this class of evidence in some types of crime which by their peculiar nature involve the question of intent, guilty knowledge and scheme and plan such as embezzlement, . . .(Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Saulmon v. State · Bewley v. State““As a general rule, evidence of other offenses, though of the same nature, is not admissible for the purpose of showing that the defendant is guilty of the particular offense charged. To this rule, however, there are well-settled exceptions. Those applicable to the question presented on the record in this case are as follows: “(a) Evidence of other offenses similar to that charged is relevant and admissible, when it tends to prove some element of the one charged, as when it shows or tends to show guilty knowledge or intent in the commission of the offense charged. “(b) Evidence that tends directly to prove the defendant’s guilt is not rendered inadmissible because it proves or tends to prove him guilty of another and distinct offense. “(c) Evidence of a different offense from the one charged is admissible Avhen both offenses are so closely linked or connected as to form a part of the res gestae. “(d) Evidence of other offenses is competent to prove the specific offense charged when it tends to establish a systematic scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more offenses so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, or to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense charged.””
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.