Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 Ky. 726 - Hoffman v. Commonwealth

Hoffman v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
March 1946
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 1946

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

8019091910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Prater · Barnes v. Commonwealth · State v. Roberts · State v. Thaden · Gathings v. State

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

  1. “‘‘Section 237, Criminal Code of Practice, provides : ‘If two or more defendants be jointly indicted for a felony, any defendant is entitled to a separate trial. ’ “The language of this section is mandatory as to the right of a defendant, jointly indicted with another or others for a felony, to a separate trial. The court is without power to refuse it to him when demanded. The section is, however, silent as to the right of the Commonwealth to separately try one of several defendants jointly indicted for a felony. But in the absence of any statute denying the Commonwealth the right to try separately one of several defendants so indicted, there is, in our opinion, no obstacle in the way of its exercise of such right. It must not be overlooked that at the common law the ■Commonwealth and not the defendant, in case of joint indictments, had the right of election, subject to the discretion of the court whether to try defendants jointly or separately. The Code only changes the common law to the extent of also allowing a defendant in cases of joint indictment for a felony, the right to demand and have a separate trial, but does not take away from the Commonwealth the right to separately try each of several defendants, jointly indicted! for a felony. In other words, the common law, in respect to this right of the Commonwealth, has not been abrogated by the Code. “It will further be observed that, although section 237, Criminal Code of Practice, gives to the defendant, jointly indicted”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.