Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 41 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant was tried on an information filed by the prosecuting attorney, rather than on an indictment returned by a grand jury; and appellant claims that prosecuting him by information is violative of his rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions. Amendment 21 of the State Constitution reads: 'That all offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment may be prosecuted either by indictment by a grand jury or information filed by the Prosecuting Attorney.' This amendment has been upheld by this court against such attack as is here made, in numerous cases, some of which are: Penton v. State, 194 Ark. 503, 109 S.W.2d 131 and Smith v. State, 194 Ark. 1041, 110 S.W.2d 24. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a State can-- if it so desires-- provide for a prosecution by information instead of by indictment. Some of these cases are: Hurtado v. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232, Bolln v. State of Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83 , 20 S.Ct. 287, 44 L.Ed. 382; and Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81 , 72 L.Ed. 793, 48 S.Ct. 468.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Petty v. State · Jack Allen Barber v. State of Arkansas

2. ““ ‘The rule precluding the use of the confessions of co-conspirators and codefendants as evidence against those not making the confessions is limited to confessions made in the absence of such other defendants. A confession of a co-conspirator or codefendant made in the presence of the accused and assented to by him, impliedly or tacitly by his silence or conduct, is admissible against him, upon the same principles which permit the introduction of evidence that the defendant stood silent when accused of crime, but it must appear that he did assent to the confession.’ “We, therefore, conclude that there was no error in the Court’s ruling on the point here involved.””

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

3. ““When the State sought to introduce the appellant’s confession the hearing was recessed to the Judge’s chambers for the Trial Judge to see if there was sufficient evidence of voluntariness to submit the issue to the jury. Such is in accordance with our frequently stated procedure. Charles v. State, 198 Ark. 1154 , 133 S. W. 2d 26 ; Brown v. State, 198 Ark. 920 , 132 S. W. 2d 15 ; Hendrix v. State, 200 Ark. 103 , 167 S. W. 2d 503 . The Trial judge correctly ruled that there was sufficient evidence offered to take the case to the jury on the voluntariness of the confession; and thereupon the hearing was resumed before the jury.””

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