State v. Weldy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Two or more offenses or different statements of the same offense may be charged in the same charging document in a separate count, or alternatively, if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. [Emphasis added.] (3) The prosecution is not required to elect between the different offenses set forth in the charging document, and the defendant may be convicted of any number of the offenses charged except as provided in 46-11-410. Each offense of which the defendant is convicted must he stated in the verdict or the finding of the court. [Emphasis added.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pope · State v. Blain Southern

2. “(1) The other crimes, wrongs or acts must be similar. (2) The other crimes, wrongs or acts must not be remote in time. (3) The evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity with such character; but may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. (4) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Whitlow

3. “[T]he United States Supreme Court held that it is erroneous to assume that statutory alternatives are ipso facto independent elements defining independent crimes under state law. 'In point of fact ... legislatures frequently enumerate alternative means of committing a crime without intending to define separate elements of separate crimes[.]'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watts v. State