Hawkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently March 1995 · most notably Patterson v. State (1975), Kiefer v. State (1958)
92 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 Mack v. State · Hicks v. State · Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes · Peats v. State · Stocking v. State
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o}rdinarily, whatever the jury may learn through the ear from descriptions given by witnesses they may learn directly through the eye from the objects described.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State · Kiefer v. State““We can think of details that might legitimately have been told by witnesses that are not shown by either Exhibit 12 or 24. The stench of human flesh putrefying in the weeds under a hot May sun can be described but not photographed. In fact the oral testimony in this case paints a picture just as repulsive as those shown by the photographs. They confirm, perhaps without adding, details, the bound hands, the cracked skull, which it was proper to relate to the jury. The extent of the head injury was material for appellant in his confession sought to leave the impression that his striking the driver of the taxicab on the head with a lead pipe was an attempt to save him from being shot by his confederate. The photograph of the skull gave the jury an accurate picture of the jagged hole and radiating cracks, indicating not a mild knockout tap but a violent blow.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kiefer v. State““Appellant tendered 28 instructions, all of which were given except two. By these he sought to have the jury instructed that under the indictment for murder while perpetrating a robbery, he could be convicted of murder in the second degree, manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. (Cases cited) The reason is found in the fact that neither premeditation, intent to kill, nor malice is a necessary element of the crime charged. This was long ago decided in Stocking v. State (1855), 7 Ind. 326 . The instructions were properly refused.” See also: Witt v. State of Indiana (1933), 205 Ind. 499 , 185 N. E. 645 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dull v. State
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.