99 Wis. 2d 269 - Barrera v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess (1985), 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr (1983)
4 federal appellate · 90 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 Harrington v. California · Brewer v. Williams · Desist v. United States · Lynumn v. Illinois · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 the person acted in conformity therewith. This subsection does not exclude the evidence when offered for other purposes, such as. . .identity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977), this court held that: "'Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred. Woodhull v. State, 43 Wis. 2d 202 , 168 N.W.2d 281 (1969).’ Id. at 394. See also: State v. Bowie, 92 Wis. 2d 192 , 284 N.W.2d 613 (1979). " 'Moreover, in Novitzke v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 302 , 284 N.W.2d 904 (1979) this court set forth the test for harmless error as follows: '"Errors committed at trial should not overturn the conviction unless it appears the result might probably have been more favorable to the party complaining had the error not occurred.’ Hart v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 371 , 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). In Wold v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), a case involving improperly admitted evidence, the court stated: '"The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 Sup. Ct. 1726, 23 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1969). This test is based on reasonable probabilities.’ "'Other formulations of the harmless error test would require reviewing courts to set aside the verdict and judgment unless sure that error did not inf”
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.