State v. Wood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A review of the evidence reveals that in no instance was a fact essential to the conviction of defendant of the Weesner burglary and larceny supplied by the testimony of Johnita Means [the accomplice] standing alone. Her testimony merely corroborated the confession of defendant which was further corroborated by other witnesses and physical facts. “The precise issue developed for our determination is whether or not the refusal of the trial court to submit the cautionary instruction amounted to reversible error when the testimony concerned was only cumulative. “. . . In State v. Patterson, 52 Kan. 335 , 34 Pac. 784 , it was held that unless the testimony of an accomplice was corroborated by other evidence as to some material fact the trial judge had a duty, if requested so to do, to advise the jury not to convict upon the testimony of an accomplice alone. “In State v. McDonald, 107 Kan. 568 , 193 Pac. 179 ; State v. Bolton, 111 Kan. 577 , 207 Pac. 653 and State v. Eyth, 124 Kan. 405 , 260 Pac. 976 , instructions were approved which cautioned the jury in accepting and acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In such cases the necessity of the cautionary instruction is obvious. “In State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410 , 111 Pac. 437 and State v. Stiff, 148 Kan. 224 , 80 P.2d 1089 , it was held that failure to submit the cautionary instruction was not error when no request was made. In the Miller case the court further stated that a jury of ordinary intelligence would n”

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