Bolden v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that superior court “erred” in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior acts “[b]ecause the acts did not constitute an admissible common scheme or plan, or prove facts in dispute”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Engelman
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1990-03-20· cited 63×
• Haakanson v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1988-08-05· cited 31×
• Soper v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1987-01-23· cited 26×
• Velez v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1988-10-07· cited 17×
• Johnson v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1986-12-26· cited 11×
• Willock v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2017-05-26· cited 4×
• Belcher v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2016-05-06· cited 2×
• Amerigold Holdings LLC v. Douglas Baker and Silverbow Mining LLC
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2025-08-08

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Tassell
  California Supreme Court· 1984-04-20· cited 237×
• People v. Thomas
  California Supreme Court· 1978-01-16· cited 147×
• Lerchenstein v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1985-04-05· cited 62×
• Burke v. State
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1980-10-24· cited 46×
• Oksoktaruk v. State
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1980-05-09· cited 37×
• Moor v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1985-11-08· cited 37×
• State v. Bennett
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1983-12-05· cited 31×
• Love v. State
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 1981-06-25· cited 17×