Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1979–1991 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Willcher v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1991Moreover, “[wjhether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67, 75 (D.C.1979) (citations omitted). 1991"Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented." Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67, 75 (D.C.1979) (citations omitted). 6 . | 5 | 7 |
Thompson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1990“Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Id. at 75 ; accord, e.g., Thompson, supra, 546 A.2d at 423 ; Bigelow v. United States, 498 A.2d 210, 214 (D.C.1985). 1990“Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Id. at 75 ; accord, e.g., Thompson, supra, 546 A.2d at 423 ; Bigelow v. United States, 498 A.2d 210, 214 (D.C.1985). | 2 | 3 |
Jefferson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1991Even if the Drew material fits within an exception such as motive, “the trial court may not allow it in evidence unless the court finds its probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact.” Jefferson v. United States, 587 A.2d 1075, 1078 (D.C.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Bigelow v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1990“Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Id. at 75 ; accord, e.g., Thompson, supra, 546 A.2d at 423 ; Bigelow v. United States, 498 A.2d 210, 214 (D.C.1985). 1990"Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented." Id. at 75 ; accord, e.g., Thompson, supra, 546 A.2d at 423 ; Bigelow v. United States, 498 A.2d 210, 214 (D.C.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Graves v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989Moreover, because “[wjhether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented,” Willcher, supra, 408 A.2d at 75 , and “because the trial court will usually not be in a position to decide whether the probative value of that evidence outweighs the prejudice to that defendant until the court has heard not only the rest of the government’s case but also the defendant’s response,” Graves, supra, 515 A.2d at 1141 , we have held, and reiterate today, that, absent exceptional circumstances, the gove 1989Moreover, because “[wjhether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented,” Willcher, supra, 408 A.2d at 75 , and “because the trial court will usually not be in a position to decide whether the probative value of that evidence outweighs the prejudice to that defendant until the court has heard not only the rest of the government’s case but also the defendant’s response,” Graves, supra, 515 A.2d at 1141 , we have held, and reiterate today, that, absent exceptional circumstances, the gove | 1 | 1 |
Crisafi v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1985Campbell, 450 A.2d at 430 (citing Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67, 75 (D.C.1979)); Miles, 374 A.2d at 282 ; see Light v. United States, 360 A.2d 479, 480 (D.C.1976). *214 “Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Wi llcher, 408 A.2d at 75 (citations omitted); see Crisafi, 383 A.2d at 5 (holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial). | 1 | 1 |
Light v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1985Campbell, 450 A.2d at 430 (citing Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67, 75 (D.C.1979)); Miles, 374 A.2d at 282 ; see Light v. United States, 360 A.2d 479, 480 (D.C.1976). *214 “Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Wi llcher, 408 A.2d at 75 (citations omitted); see Crisafi, 383 A.2d at 5 (holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Thomas Clemonsgreen1 sentence1979United States v. Clemons, 503 F.2d 486, 489 (8th Cir. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. United States
green
1 sentence1985Campbell, 450 A.2d at 430 (citing Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67, 75 (D.C.1979)); Miles, 374 A.2d at 282 ; see Light v. United States, 360 A.2d 479, 480 (D.C.1976). *214 “Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Wi llcher, 408 A.2d at 75 (citations omitted); see Crisafi, 383 A.2d at 5 (holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Miles v. United States
green
1 sentence1985Campbell, 450 A.2d at 430 (citing Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67, 75 (D.C.1979)); Miles, 374 A.2d at 282 ; see Light v. United States, 360 A.2d 479, 480 (D.C.1976). *214 “Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented.” Wi llcher, 408 A.2d at 75 (citations omitted); see Crisafi, 383 A.2d at 5 (holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Nathan L. Drew v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Whether an issue has been raised for purposes of receiving other crimes evidence depends upon both the elements of the offense charged and the defense presented. [ Id. at 75 ; citations omitted.] [3] The dissent concludes that testimony by the detective concerning the first incident in April, when he had observed appellant and two other females "get into the car and virtually surround the driver [a male]", goes "too far afield". | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.