12 Okla. Crim. 534 - Cantrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If it were the law that everything which has a natural tendency to lead the mind towards a conclusion that a person charged with crime is guilty must be admitted in evidence against him on the trial of that charge, the argument for the state would doubtless be hard to answer; but the law is otherwise. It is the law that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the law in this respect is wise or unwise, whether it accords with human reason and experience, whether it affords too great protection to the criminal, or too little to society, are not questions with which we have to do. It is not the province of the courts to change and relax the rules of evidence in order to facilitate convictions in a particular class of offenses. Until the lawmaking power intervenes and prescribes differently, the same rules of evidence must govern the trials of defendants in this class of offenses that govern in all other criminal trials. “It follows that evidence of the general reputation of the defendants as to being bootleggers was incompetent to impeach the credibility of the defendants as witnesses, or for any other purpose: Its admission was therefore prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendants.” And see Richards v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 225 , 154 P. 72 ; Upton v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 593 , 160 P. 1134 ; Kirby v. State, 25 Okla. Cr. 330 , 220 P. 74 , 33 A. L. R. 1212.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 Okla. Crim. 256 - Grubbs v. State

2. ““It is a doctrine as old as free government that men who are placed upon trial charged with the violation of criminal statutes are to be tried for the offense alleged against them and are not to be tried upon a reputation for having committed similar or kindred offenses. The issue in a criminal case is single, .and is always based upon the question: Is the defendant at the bar guilty of the offense charged against him in the information? and not, has he the reputation of being guilty of similar or other offenses againt the laws of this country?””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 Okla. Crim. 256 - Grubbs v. State