State v. Marcy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a rule that conviction cannot rest upon a confession made out of court unless there is independent evidence to establish tbit the crime' has actually been committed by someone. However, the admission of the defendant, along with other circumstances, can be shown to establish the corpus delicti. State v. Scott, 86 Wash. 296 , 150 Pac. 423 ; L. R. A. 1916B, 844. . . . “In a prosecution for larceny it is not essential that the corpus delicti should be established by evidence independent of that which tends to connect the defendant with its perpetration, but the same evidence may go to prove both the existence of a crime and the guilt of defendant, both standing together on a foundation of circumstantial evidence. George v. United States, 1 Okla. Crim. 307 , 97 Pac. 1052 . “The evidence tended to show that the property, if stolen, was taken from the Bloedel Donovan Lumber Mills. But it was not necessary that the ownership be shown. “ ‘Convictions of larceny have been affirmed on the proof that the property involved did not belong to the defendant, while its actual ownership could not be positively shown. State v. Coss, 12 Wash. 673 , 42 Pac. 127 ; State v. Smith, 40 Wash. 615 , 82 Pac. 918 , 5 Ann. Cas. 686; State v. Eddy, 46 Wash. 494 , 90 Pac. 641 ; State v. McIntyre, 53 Wash. 178 , 101 Pac. 710 ; State v. Ray, 62 Wash. 582 , 114 Pac. 439 .’ State v. Kruger, 145 Wash. 654 , 261 Pac. 383 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Wash. 2d 103 - State v. Van Brunt

2. ““Proof of a charge, in criminal causes, involves the proof of two distinct propositions: first, that the act itself was done, and secondly, that it was done by the person charged, and by none other — in other words, proof of the corpus delicti and of the identity of the prisoner. Hence before there can be a lawful conviction of a crime, the corpus delicti — that is, that the crime charged has been committed by some one — must be proved.” 4”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 67 Wash. 2d 238 - State v. Allen