Ratliff v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A confession of a defendant, unless .made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that such an offense was committed.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tappan v. Commonwealth · Dunbar v. Commonwealth

2. ““Where a confession by an accused is proven, the rule relating to instructing the jury in regard to it, as provided in section 240, Criminal Code, is, if the corpus delicti of the crime is clearly proven by other evidence independent of the proof of the confession by the accused, an instruction will not be given in accordance with section 240, supra; but if the proof, other than that of the confession, leaves it doubtful whether the crime has been committed, then the instruction should be given, as provided by section 240, supra.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tappan v. Commonwealth · Gilliam v. Commonwealth

3. ““Hence, where several persons are indicted for murder and after a charge of guilt of the crime is made against all, in the accusative part of the indictment, the manner and form of its commission may be set out in different counts, one or more may be charged with having done the killing and the others accused with being aiders and abettors. An indictment of this kind is not subject to criticism for duplicity, and but one offense is charged, although the manner of its commission is set out in different modes. Com. v. Hargis, 124 Ky. 356 ; Thompson v. Commonwealth, 1 Met. 13 ; Angel v. Com., 14 R. 10 ; Cupp v. Com., 87 Ky. 35 ; Howard v. Com., 110 Ky. 356 ; Benge v. Com., 92 Ky. 1 ; Mulligan v. Com., 84 Ky. 229 ; Taylor v. Com., 28 R. 821 , 90 S. W. 581 ; May v. Com., 153 Ky. 141 ; Anderson v. Com., 144 Ky. 215 . In the instant case, the indictment charges but one offense, and that is the murder of John Baker, and in the accusative part of the indictment appellant, Rude Wooten, Nannie Wooten and Bud Couch are charged with the crime of murder, but each of the five counts alleges it to have been committted by them in a different mode. The fact that the pleader unnecessarily in the second, third, fourth and fifth counts again alleges that the one accused, as the principal, in the first degree is guilty of murder, does not make the indictment bad for duplicity, as charging another offense, as the indictment charges but one offense, and the reiteration is but surplusage, which never”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fox v. Commonwealth