Supreme Court of Missouri· 5/1/2018

State v. Williams

Citations

548 S.W.3d 275

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that article I, section 18(c)’s legal relevance test includes “[t]he determination of how much and what kind of probative value particular propensity evidence may have”
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence in part because there were no eyewitness accounts and “[n]o other scientific, forensic, medical, or psychological witness was available”
noting that “it is safe to say a general prohibition against the use of propensity evidence in criminal cases has been firmly engrained in American jurisprudence throughout much of the nation’s history”
finding that to show evidence is probative, the evidence “must tend to show the defendant actually had a propensity to commit the charged crime at the time it is alleged to have occurred.”
finding evidence of prior criminal acts probative of charged acts when they are highly similar and close in time
reviewing several federal circuit court cases that found the admission of certain propensity evidence in cases concerning sexual assault is not unconstitutional because it is tempered by the probative-versus-prejudicial balancing test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wilson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.