George v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Rachal v. State (1996), Mitchell v. State (1996)
39 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 Huddleston v. United States · Harrell v. State · 165 Tex. Crim. 422 - Ernster v. State · 84 Tex. Crim. 629 - Haley v. State · 93 Tex. Crim. 442 - Lankord 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 39 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, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon timely request by the accused in a criminal case, reasonable notice is given in advance of trial of intent to introduce in the State's case-in-chief such evidence other than that arising in the same transaction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. State · Taylor v. State“any evidence of an offense other than that charged in the indictment if any, may not be considered for any purpose by the jury unless and until they believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed such other offense, if any, and then such may be considered only for the limited purpose for which it was offered and admitted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State“the question of the appropriate jury instruction in tandem with the question of the proper standard for admissibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Mitchell 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.