Hartfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If it be true, as this Court has held in the Windham and Minor cases, supra, that it is reversible error to tell a jury what punishment can be imposed by the court in the event of a conviction of manslaughter, then most assuredly it should constitute such error for the jury to be told that there is no use for it to return a manslaughter verdict, or for a life sentence, on the asserted ground that in such event the court could not punish the defendant at all. If it is prejudicial to inform the jury as to the extent of the punishment fixed by law in a case where a manslaughter conviction is permissible, then certainly it is prejudicial to tell the jury, contrary to the law, that such a conviction would carry no punishment at all in the instant case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 532 So. 2d 976 - Marks v. State

2. “If the appellant, Hartfield, had offered himself as a witness, which he did not do, then proof of the fact that he had been previously convicted of a crime (but not the extent of the punishment imposed) would, . .. have been competent to affect his credibility as a witness. ( 186 Miss. at 92 , 189 So. at 533 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lovelace v. State

3. “Q. You never knew [Hartfield] at all, except as a convict in the state penitentiary, who was committed there for life, did you? A. No, sir.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 903 So. 2d 739 - Wells v. State