Cogburn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under the facts of the instant case the judgment here is not final. “It is a proceeding preliminary to the trial upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and the only effect it can have on such trial is to postpone it, in the event the issue is found for the defendant. It is purely a collateral issue, similar to those involved upon an application for continuance, or the qualification of a talesman when the jury is being impaneled. It is also somewhat analogous to cases where the question of the admission of evidence is presented and tried by the presiding judge, such as the competency of dying declarations and of secondary evidence of the contents of lost documents.” Jordan v. State, supra. [ 124 Tenn. 81 , 135 S.W. 327 , 34 L.R.A., N.S., 1115]. Thus in view of this fact that the judgment is not final the State very forcibly and reasonably argues that the appeal should be dismissed for this reason. In support of this argument the State says: “In Jordan v. State, 124 Tenn. 81 [ 135 S.W. 327 , 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 1115], it is expressly held that an appeal would not lie from a judgment against one finding him presently sane. The same rule definitely must be applicable to a judgment finding him presently insane. In McLean v. State, 1 [Tenn.] Cas. (Shannon) 474, it was held that it was no such final judgment where a plea of former conviction was interposed and denied as to per mit an appeal therefrom. In State v. Bass, 153 Tenn. 162 [ 281 S.W. 936 ], it was held that an order to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bonhart

2. “And the rule at common law is that an accused cannot be tried while insane, for the obvious reason that his insanity may render him incapable of making a rational defense, and at common law, if at any time while criminal proceedings are pending, the trial court, before or during the trial, either from observation or upon suggestion of counsel, has facts brought to its attention which raise a doubt of the then sanity of the accused, it should, before putting him upon trial or continuing his trial initiate an investigation of such by any method, generally, that seems to it best.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Haun

3. ““ ‘. . . (T)he method that shall be ordered of determining the present sanity of the accused before the beginning of the trial generally rests in the discretion of the trial judge, with or without the aid of a jury. He may inquire into the facts himself, or he may impanel a jury for the purpose if he sees fit, or he may submit the question as an issue to the trial jury.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. MacKey v. State