228 So. 2d 599 - Murphree v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Johnson v. State (1985), Clemons v. State (1988)
34 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Giles v. State of Maryland · Miller v. Pate · Marr 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the appellant a peremptory instruction and in overruling a motion for a new trial. The motions were properly overruled because the evidence was conflicting and the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight and worth of their testimony. This wise rule applies with equal force to the State's witnesses as to the appellant's witnesses, including the appellant. We have repeatedly held that jurors may accept the testimony of some witnesses and refuse that of others, and that they may accept in part and reject in part the evidence on behalf of the State and on behalf of the accused. McLelland v. State, 204 So.2d 158 (Miss. 1967); Cobb v. State, 235 Miss. 57 , 108 So.2d 719 (1959); Ivey v. State, 206 Miss. 734 , 40 So.2d 609 (1949); Hill v. State, 199 Miss. 254 , 24 So.2d 737 (1946). It is not for this Court to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, and where the evidence justifies the verdict it must be accepted as having been found worthy of belief. McLelland v. State, supra ; Matthews v. State, 243 Miss. 568 , 139 So.2d 386 (1962); Scott v. State, 185 Miss. 454 , 188 So. 546 (1939). It is obvious that this Court cannot set aside a verdict of guilty unless it is clear that the verdict is the result of bias, passion or prejudice or is manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence. McLelland v. State, supra ; Marr v. State, 248 Miss. 281 , 159 So.2d 167 (1963); Hender”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Drake v. State · Drungo v. State“... The proof in this case is overwhelming that the tire tool was the lethal weapon used by appellant. The state was under no obligation to even introduce the tire tool... . ( 228 So.2d at 601 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.