2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 5 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Elinski.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Elinski Anchor | green | “the proponent of the evidence must demonstrate its relevancy to the consequential facts, and the material issue, such as intent, must in fact be in dispute.” | 3 |
| 2 | State v. Lucero | green | “requires counsel to identify the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.