People v. Ferlin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 143 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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Complaint is made by the defendant that the lower court erred in refusing to charge the jury, as matter of law, that the witness Hill was an accomplice. It is urged that this question, in view of the evidence in the case, was not a proper one to be submitted to the jury for determination. We are of the opinion that the defendant’s contention is meritorious, for the evidence in the case unquestionably points to Hill as an accomplice. Moreover, the conduct of the prosecuting officer throughout the trial strongly indicates that Hill was so regarded. The question as to whether or not the witness Hill was an accomplice, under the evidence, was not seriously disputed upon the trial of the cause. It was the duty of the trial court, therefore, to instruct the jury, as matter of law, that Hill was an accomplice of the defendant. (People v. Coffey, 161 Cal. 433, 436 [39 L. R A. (N. S.) 704, 119 Pac. 901 ] ; People v. Howell, 69 Cal. App. 239, 242 [ 230 Pac. 991 ].) However, this error cannot be said to have prejudicially affected the defendant. In People v. McDermott, 75 Cal. App. 718 [ 243 Pac. 485 ], it is declared that ‘the jury should have been instructed that Sova must be regarded as an accomplice. That question should not have been left to it to determine. However, it must be presumed that the jurors observed and applied the instructions given them. In other instructions the definition of an accomplice was correctly stated, as also was the rule that the defendant may not be conv”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Wahnish

2. “It would not be seriously contended that one accidentally killing himself while engaged in the commission of a felony was guilty of murder. If the defendant ... is guilty of murder because of the accidental killing of his coconspirator, then it must follow that [the deceased coconspirator] was also guilty of murder, and, if he had recovered from his burns, that he would have been guilty of an attempt to commit murder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Tham

3. “It cannot be said from the record in the instant case that defendant and deceased had a common design that deceased should accidentally kill himself. Such an event was not in furtherance of the conspiracy, but entirely opposed to it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 Md. App. 555 - Watkins v. State