Harrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2009 · most notably Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell (1967), Chandler v. Jones (1987)
10 federal appellate · 55 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 Linkletter v. Walker · Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles · Doughty v. Maxwell · State v. Ferrone · Diamond v. State of Louisiana
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * it is prejudicial error to allow knowledge or evidence of previous convictions, enhancing the penalty upon conviction of the present crime, to be placed before the jury prior to their determination of defendant’s guilt or innocence of the present crime.” id at 717.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1-3) Habitual criminal statutes do not create an independent crime but define a status prescribing circumstances under which there is an enhanced penalty for the present crime. To be more specific it is first necessary that the jury determine guilt of present crime (count one in the case at bar) before determining guilt or innocence of the habitual criminal count (count two in the case at bar) which finding, if guilty, enhances the punishment of the present crime. If the jury finds not guilty of the present crime then the habitual criminal is not at issue. Tipton v. State, 160 Tenn. 664 , 28 S.W.2d 635 (1930); McCummings v. State, 175 Tenn. 309 , 134 S.W.2d 151 (1939); State ex rel. Grandstaff v. Gore, 182 Tenn. 94 , 184 S.W.2d 366 (1945); Ex Parte Bailey, 60 Okl.Cr. 278 , 64 P.2d 278 , (1936); People v. Lamphear, 6 Ill.2d 346 , 128 N.E.2d 892 (1955).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There are limits to the human mind. We think to say to any jury, there is evidence here the defendant before you has been guilty of several prior crimes but you are not to consider this in determining his guilt or innocence of the present crime, is at best to severely test the ability of the mind to remove all prejudice therefrom.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Shepherd · State v. Walker
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.