State v. Jennings’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently December 1992 · most notably State v. Williams (1973), State v. Schroder (1984)
58 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Marion · United States v. Ewell · Dickey v. Florida · Smith v. United States · Beavers v. Haubert
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An accomplice is a person who willfully unites in, or is in some way concerned in the commission of a crime. The general rule for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is if he could be charged with and convicted of the specific offense for which an accused is on trial. But something more than mere knowledge that a crime is contemplated, or mere personal presence at the time and place where committed, must be shown in order to make one an accomplice. And it must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness was in fact an accomplice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Losee · State v. Doss““The public policy inherent in § 795.2 [in this case § 795.1] requires trial within 60 days absent good cause, and it is the State’s duty to effectuate that policy.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bond · State v. Leonard““An accomplice is a person who willfully unites in, or is in some way concerned in the commission of a crime. The general rule for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is if he could be charged with and convicted of the specific offense for which an accused is on trial. (Authorities cited). “But something more than mere knowledge that a crime is contemplated, or mere personal presence at the time and place where committed, must be shown in order to make one an accomplice. And it must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness was in fact an accomplice. (Authorities cited). “Corroborative evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. (Authorities cited). “And testimony offered as corroboration need not be entirely inconsistent with innocence. (Authority cited). “Whether there exists corroborative evidence adequate to meet the requirements of Code § 782.5, quoted supra, is a question of law for the courts, sufficiency thereof a fact issue for the jury. Furthermore, evidence introduced to corroborate an accomplice need be neither strong nor corroborative of every material matter, being sufficient if it legitimately tends to connect an accused with the crime charged and lends support to credibility of an accomplice. (Authorities cited).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bizzett · State v. Grindle
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.