Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2012
9 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 McClain v. State · Juneby v. State · Juneby v. State · Braham v. State · United States v. Hopkinson
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 9 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 if the sole purpose for offering the evidence is to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It is, however, admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“I just want to instruct the jury that the evidence you have just heard may not be considered by you to prove what kind of character the defendant has or that he has a disposition to commit crimes. Such evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show a motive for the commission of the crime charged. For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. You are not permitted to consider such evidence for any other purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Toomer v. State“Under the circumstances of this case, .... proof of motive and common scheme or plan were crucial and legitimate components of the prosecution's case.... Because the disputed evidence 'had direct and obvious bearing on an actively disputed issue and was actually necessary to the state's case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence more probative than prejudicial under A.R.E. 403 and in allowing its admission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Phillips 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.