People v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

199 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 203 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It is the duty of a court in criminal eases to give, of its own motion, instructions on the general principles of law pertinent to such cases, where they are not proposed or presented in writing by the parties themselves.’ ” (See also People v. Yrigoyen, 45 Cal.2d 46, 49 [ 286 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Buffum, 40 Cal.2d 709, 724 [ 256 P.2d 317 ].)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Cayer · People v. Katcher

2. ““ ‘ “A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if one statute necessitates proof of a different circumstance or element from that which the other requires, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other. * * * Undoubtedly it is within the power of the legislature to create two or more offenses which may be committed by a single act, each of which is punishable by itself. A conviction or acquittal in such case under either statute would be no bar to a conviction under the other, for the accused would not be twice in jeopardy for one offense, but only once in jeopardy for each offense.” (15 Am.Jur. p. 67.) In the case of People v. Bently, 77 Cal. 7 [ 18 P. 799 , 11 Am.St.Rep. 225 ], it was held that a conviction of an assault with a deadly weapon, under an information charging an assault with intent to commit murder, is not a bar to a subsequent conviction of an attempt to commit robbery, although the offenses were so closely connected in point of time that it is impossible to separate the evidence relating to them.’ ” 104 P.2d at 1028 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hall · 64 Cal. App. 2d 592 - People v. Krupa

3. ““A conviction can not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend 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. “An accomplice is hereby defined as one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Wade · State v. Anderson