State v. Conley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 state decisions

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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order for intent or the absence of mistake or accident to serve as the basis for admission of evidence of similar uncharged crimes, it is necessary that those be legitimate issues in the case. State v. Atkinson, 293 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Mo.1956). When there is direct evidence that the defendant committed the illicit act, the proof of the act ordinarily gives rise to an inference of the necessary mens rea. No other evidence is required to establish that element of the case unless the state has some reason to believe that the defendant will make intent or mistake or accident an issue in the case. People v. Woltz, 228 Ill.App.3d 670 , 170 Ill.Dec. 502, 505 , 592 N.E.2d 1182, 1185 (1992); Thomas v. State, 612 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind.App.1993); State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207 , 768 P.2d 268, 273-74 (1989); People v. Leo, 188 Mich. App. 417 , 470 N.W.2d 423, 426 (1991). Where the defendant’s intent is not a real issue in the case, offering evidence of other crimes to establish that element of the state’s case is unnecessary. Thus, the probative value of such evidence is far outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d at 13 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tolliver · State v. Dudley

2. ““What Bernard attempted to make clear was that where the uncharged offenses or conduct involved different victims at a different and unrelated time and place, the traditional common scheme or plan exception would not apply. However, the Court in Bernard went on to recognize a related exception known as the ‘signature modus operandi /corroboration exception.’ That exception, similar to the identity exception, authorized evidence of an uncharged crime if the offenses are nearly identical and their methodology so unusual and distinctive that they amount to a signature of the defendant involved in both crimes.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dudley · State v. Alexander

3. “"When a defendant is charged with more than one offense in the same indictment or information, the offenses shall be tried jointly unless the court orders an offense to be tried separately. An offense shall be ordered to be tried separately only if: "(a) A party files a written motion requesting a separate trial of the offense; "(b) A party makes a particularized showing of substantial prejudice if the offense is not tried separately; and "(c) The court finds the existence of a bias or discrimination against the party that requires a separate trial of the offense."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kelley · State v. McNaughton