State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule on corroboration is well put by Mr. Justice Holloway in State v. Cobb, 76 Mont. 89 , at page 92, 245 P. 265 , at page 266, Where he says: “ ‘(a) The corroborating evidence may be supplied by the defendant or his witnesses. “ ‘(b) It need not be direct evidence — it may be circumstantial. “ ‘ (c) It need not extend to every fact to which the accomplice testifies. “ ‘ (d) It need not be sufficient to justify a conviction or to establish a prima facie ease of guilt. “ ‘(e) It need not be sufficient to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime; it is sufficient if it tends to do so. “ ‘(f) Whether the corroborating evidence tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense is a question of law, but the weight of the evidence — its efficacy to fortify the testimony of the accomplice and render his story trustworthy — is a matter for the consideration of the jury.’ State v. Cobb, supra, has often been followed by this court. See State v. Yegen, [ 86 Mont. 251 , 283 P. 210 ] supra; State v. Jackson, 88 Mont. 420, 430 , 293 P. 309, 311 ; State v. McComas, supra [ 85 Mont. 428 , 278 P. 993 ] ; State v. Donges, [ 123 Mont. 341 , 251 P.2d 341 ] supra; State v. Duran, 127 Mont. 233, 236 , 259 P.2d 1051, 1052 ; State v. Phillips, 127 Mont. 381, 387 , 264 P.2d 1009, 1012 ; State v. Slothower, 56 Mont. 230 , 182 P. 270 ; State v. Ritz, [ 65 Mont. 180 , 211 P.298] supra; State v. Keckonen, 107 Mont. 253 , 84 P.2d 341 ; State v. Jones, [ 95 Mont. 317 , 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moran

2. ““The relation between the forger and one passing the instrument knowing it to contain a forged indorsement is analogous to that between a thief and one receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen. It has been held that one who steals property is not an accomplice of one who receives the property knowing it to have been stolen unless the thief and the receiver act in concert in advance of the larceny, because they are separate and distinct crimes. State v. Keithley, 83 Mont. 177 , 271 Pac. 449 . That same principle governs this case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Paskvan

3. ““. . . transactions which are so related to, and connected with, the forgery charged as to be otherwise admissible are not inadmissible because they tend to prove a wholly dissimilar crime, particularly where they constitute part of a connected or continuous transaction on the part of [the] accused.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bretz