Cummings v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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. “at least one material fact of independent evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Glossip v. State · Jones v. State

2. “[Cummings] argues ... that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial for Count I, the murder of Judy Mayo, from Counts II and III, the murder and child abuse of Melissa Moody. This Court has held that “join-der of separately punishable offenses is permitted if the separate offenses arise out of one criminal act or transaction, or are part of a series of criminal acts or transactions.” Glass v. State, 1985 OK CR 65 , 701 P.2d 765 , 768. Further, with respect to a series of criminal acts or transactions, “joinder of offenses is proper where the counts so joined refer to the same type of offenses occurring over a relatively short period of time, in approximately the same location, and proof as to each transaction overlaps so as to evidence a common scheme or plan.” Id. See also Pack v. State, 1991 OK CR 109 , 819 P.2d 280 , 282. In applying this law to the facts of the present case, we find that the murders of Judy Mayo and her daughter were part of a series of criminal acts which were related to one another. Although they were not killed by exactly the same means or at the exact same time, Judy and Melissa were murdered within twelve hours of each other. Further, although Judy and Melissa were not killed in the same location, the residence that [Cummings] shared with Juanita and Sherry was central to both murders. Judy was actually killed there and Melissa was held captive there until immediately before she was taken to the location where she was killed. Fi”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cummings v. Sirmons · Lott v. State

3. “In his third proposition [Cummings] complains that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that Sherry and Juanita were accomplices as a matter of law to Count II, the murder of Melissa Moody. As we have already determined that Juanita was not an accomplice as a matter of law to Count II, failure to instruct otherwise cannot be found to have been error. However, because the evidence was sufficient to support a First Degree Murder charge against Sherry for Melissa’s murder, the trial court did err by failing to instruct the jury that Sherry was an accomplice to this crime as a matter of law. This Court has held that “where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt and the presence of sufficient corroborating testimony, the failure to so instruct is harmless.” Howell v. State, 1994 OK CR 62 , 882 P.2d 1086 , 1092, cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1113 , 115 S.Ct. 1968 , 131 L.Ed.2d 858 (1995). See also Bryson v. State, 1994 OK CR 32 , 876 P.2d 240 , 256, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1090 , 115 S.Ct. 752 , 130 L.Ed.2d 651 (1995). Because we find that there was overwhelming evidence of [Cummings’] guilt as to Count II and that [Cummings’] conviction on this count was supported by sufficient corroborating evidence, we find this error to have been harmless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cummings v. Sirmons