Brooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

97 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ Here the record shows the parties went to trial on a plea of Not Guilty and the verdict was returned after considering the evidence on this plea. The first and only intimation of a previous plea of guilty comes through a question to the defendant on cross examination. Under these circumstances it seems clear to us that the State, having thus proceeded, waived the former plea of guilty and any formal order setting the same aside and elected to try the defendant on his plea of Not Guilty. The converse of this proposition was held in Stewart v. State, 164 Tenn. 202 , 46 S.W.2d 811 . A fortiori the rule should apply to a defendant.” “Having thus proceeded, it was erroneous for the State to ask the defendant on cross examination ‘if he did not plead guilty to the charge. ’ In Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 , Mr. Justice Butler speaking for the Court said: “ ‘A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extra-judicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do hut give judgment and sentence. Out of just consideration for persons accused of crime, courts are careful that a plea of guilty shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences. When one so pleads he may be held bound. (Citing authority.) But, on timely application, the court will vacate a plea ”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dykes v. State · State ex rel. Rivera v. Henderson

2. ““ ‘An act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to the accepted rule or right and duty between man and man. ’ ’ ’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sissom v. State · State v. Morgan

3. ““ ‘(1) The rule with regard to the admission of evidence of other offenses on a criminal trial is well stated to be: “Evidence material to the issue under investigation in a criminal case is never rendered incompetent because it tends to show that the accused has committed other crimes. It is competent or incompetent according to whether it is relevant to the issue on trial and has probative value. If incompetent by that test, its tendency to show guilt of another offense may cause it to be prejudicial to the accused and therefore ground for reversal.” ’ “When and to what extent this cross examination may be indulged in has been dealt with in Zanone v. State, 97 Tenn. 101 , 36 S.W. 711 , 35 L.R.A. 556 ; Ryan v. State, 97 Tenn. 206 , 36 S.W. 930 ; Powers v. State, 117 Tenn. 363 , 97 S.W. 815 ; and in Keith v. State, 127 Tenn. 40 , 152 S.W. 1029 , 1030, where this Court said that the rule that ‘where the prisoner is a witness in his own behalf, * * * on cross examination, he may, for the purpose of affecting his credit as a witness, be questioned about special acts of moral turpitude.’ This is about the extent of our former holdings. In so far as we know, no reported case has directly ruled on the question here involved, wherein the indictment does not involve an act of moral turpitude. “(9) 'Moral turpitude’ has no satisfactory definition. Vol. 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Rawle’s 3rd Rev., gives the accepted legal definition of the term as: 'An act of baseness, vileness, or de”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 362 - McKenzie v. State