State v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`one who knowingly, voluntarily and with common intent with the principal offender unites in the commission of a crime.... One may become an accomplice by being present and joining in the criminal act, by aiding and abetting another in its commission, or not being present, by advising and encouraging its commission; but knowledge and voluntary actions are essential in order to impute guilt.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Johnston · State v. Johnston

2. ““A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence, which in itself, and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient, if it merely shows the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof.’ ’”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hammons · State v. Moran

3. ““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 · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moran