Garton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 state decisions

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘The degree of evidence which shall be deemed sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice is for the determination of the jury. The the law is complied with if there is some other evidence fairly tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, so that his conviction will not rest entirely upon the evidence of the accomplice.’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 214 - Binkley v. State · 1 Tenn. Crim. App. 768 - Britt v. State

2. ““Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that slight circumstances may furnish the necessary corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony. Alexander v. State, 190 Tenn. 260 , 229 S.W.2d 331 ; Garton v. State, 206 Tenn. 79 , 332 S.W.2d 169 . “In Stanley v. State, 189 Tenn. 110 , 222 S.W.2d 384 , the Court said: ‘(1) The sufficiency of evidence required to corroborate an accomplice is well set forth in Clapp v. State, 94 Tenn. 186 , 30 S.W. 214, 217 , as follows : ‘ “The degree of evidence which shall be deemed sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice is for the determination of the jury. The law is complied with if there is some other evidence fairly tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, so that his conviction will not rest entirely upon the evidence of the accomplice.” ‘(2, 3) This Court has likewise held that rather slight circumstances may be sufficient to furnish necessary corroboration. Winfree v. State, 174 Tenn. 72 , 123 S.W.2d 827 . The sufficiency of corroborating evidence where the testimony of an accomplice is in the main depended upon, depends upon the particular facts of each case. The weight of this testimony, that is, of the accomplice, corroborating the accomplice are ordinarily questions for the jury to determine. “That is to say, when the trial judge finds that there is some corroborative evidence, it is his duty to submit it to the jury for them to say, first, whether it is worthy of belief, and secondly, whether, if”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 424 - McAfee v. State

3. ““ * * * The sufficiency of corroborating evidence where the testimony of the accomplice is in the main depended upon, depends upon the particular facts of each case. The weight of this testimony, that is, of the accomplice, corroborating the accomplice are ordinarily questions for the jury to determine. ‘That is to say, when the trial judge finds that there is some corroborative evidence, it is his duty to submit it to the jury for them to say, first, whether it is worthy of belief, and secondly, whether, if true, tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged. It is not necessary to show by independent proof a link between the accomplice’s testimony and the corroborative proof; when the proof claimed to be corrobora tive tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy a fury that the accomplice is telling the truth, it is sufficient. For this purpose, if the accomplice is corroborated as to some material fact or facts, the jury may from that infer that he speaks the truth as to all.’ Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, Section 754, page 1272.” (emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 284 - Bastin v. State