88 Ohio App. 3d 204 - State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Barnes (2002), State v. Bolaski (2014)
37 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 State v. Jenks · Tibbs v. Florida · State v. Robbins · State v. Morales · State v. Koss
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) Reputation or opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. {¶ 80} "(B) Specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct. {¶ 81} "It is undisputed that a defendant can introduce character evidence by reputation or opinion testimony under Evid.R. 405(A).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ppellant was improperly precluded from presenting witnesses to testify that the deceased had a reputation for violence while he was under the influence of alcohol [or drugs]. Given that such evidence should have been admitted, it follows that whether the deceased was in fact under the influence of alcohol [or drugs] at the time of the incident was important to the issue of self-defense, relevant specifically to the issue of who was more likely the aggressor in the incident. Consequently, the trial court erred in excluding the evidence as to decedent's blood-alcohol [or drug] level.”
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.