Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 29 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. 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 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.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Canada v. State · Davis v. State

2. ““The crucial question in determining if a sexual assault has occurred is whether the act is committed without the consent of the victim, Dinkens v. State, 92 Nev. 74 , 546 P.2d 228 (1976), and the intent of the accused is relevant to the issue of consent or lack thereof. State v. Hampton, 215 Kan. 907 , 529 P.2d 127 (1974). In the instant case, evidence of Williams’ sexual misconduct with other persons was admitted as being relevant to prove his intent to have intercourse with the victim without her consent. This evidence was introduced after Williams admitted committing the act, but claimed to have done so with the victim’s consent. By acknowledging the commission of the act but asserting his innocent intent by claiming consent as a defense, Williams himself placed in issue a necessary element of the offense and it was, therefore, proper for the prosecution to present the challenged evidence, which was relevant on the issue of intent, in order to rebut Williams’ testimony on a point material to the establishment of his guilt. (Citations omitted). “The remarkable similarity of the mo-dus operandi in the testimony regarding the other crimes, and their relative proximity in time to the charged offense establish the probative value of such evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dickey v. State · Williams v. Wolff

3. “In order to established admissibility, then, it is not enough to establish that the evidence of a separate offense is relevant and competent under one of the exceptions to the general rule excluding such evidence. Even where relevancy under an exception to the general rule may be found, fair trial demands that the evidence not be admitted in cases where, by virtue of its prejudicial nature, it is more likely to distract from the essential issue than to bear upon it. Whether, under the circumstances, admission of the evidence interferes with fair trial, can hardly be determined by fixed rule of law. It would seem to require, instead, the exercise of judicial discretion of the trial judge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bonacci v. State