875 So. 2d 276 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 2006
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Espinosa v. State · Brown 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 1 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 to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, *Page 478 identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial , or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. " (Emphasis added.) O'Callaghan argued at trial, as she does on appeal, that in her discovery motion filed with the trial court she made the following request: "4. Any and all information about the Defendant's prior criminal record, including, but not limited to, arrests, convictions, periods of incarceration and present probationary or parole status.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'CALLAGHAN v. State“"The record indicates that Davis served the prosecutor with a copy of his discovery motion and that included in the motion was Davis's request that the *Page 479 State inform him of the general nature of all evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts the State intended to introduce at trial. "”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'CALLAGHAN 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.