Dean v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Gleason v. State (2002), Vigil v. State (1996)
45 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 Strickland v. Washington · Berger v. United States · National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Idaho · Gibson v. United States · United States v. Myers
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. — 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.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Vigil v. State · Rigler v. State“1. The extent to which the prosecution plainly, clearly, and convincingly can prove the other similar crimes; 2. The remoteness in time of those crimes from the charged offense; 3. The extent to which the evidence of other crimes is introduced for a purpose sanctioned by W.R.E. 404(b); 4. The extent to which the element of the charged offense, that the evidence is introduced to prove, is actually at issue; 5. The extent to which the prosecution has a substantial need for the probative value of the evidence of the other crimes.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sandy v. State · Vigil v. State“[L]et me say for the record that element No. 1 that is here on the Dean case, the reprehensible nature of the prior bad act, I think this certainly balances in favor of excluding the evidence. No. 2, the sympathetic character of the alleged victim of the prior bad act. That also balances in favor of excluding the evidence, but not nearly to the same magnitude that it does with respect to No. 1. The similarity between the charged crime and the prior bad act, I think this element, in my opinion, goes in favor of the state. Namely, even though the evidence is being tailored somewhat, it’s being tailored in order to avoid undue prejudice. I do agree with the state’s view that this concept of 404(b) as applied to the issue of an identified tie is — to use a worn-out cliché — it’s like a mark of Zorro theory. There are certain distinguishing features that individuals leave at crime scenes. That’s really all the state is trying to show. So, therefore, it’s the similarity with respect to these distinctive features, not necessarily similarity with respect to the totality of the circumstances, which is the key. No. 4, the comparative enormity of the crime charged in the prior bad act. Well, this is in neutral as far as I’m concerned because, again, the state is not going to bring out the reprehensible — the most reprehensible elements of the prior bad act. It’s going to limit itself to those salient features; i.e., the mark of Zorro features, if you will. No. 5, there is a serious ques”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Rigler v. State · Gleason 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.