239 So. 2d 911 - Pryor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably 360 So. 2d 1206 - Bell v. State (1978), 983 So. 2d 270 - Hughes v. State (2008)
1 federal appellate · 23 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 State v. Thornhill · Westbrook v. State · West v. State · 220 So. 2d 833 - Matula v. State · 208 So. 2d 755 - Love 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Court instructs the Jury for the State of Mississippi that you do not have to know that the defendant is guilty in order to be perfectly warranted in convicting him; and that under the law, all that is necessary for you to convict him is for you to believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty."”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] good example of the unfairness of this instruction since it is now being used in a circumstantial evidence case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The defendant and both of his coin-dictees testified that he took no part in the robbery and knew nothing about it until they were arrested. The defendant denied that he was in the front seat of the automobile at any time and said that he never at any time ‘got behind the wheel.’ Guilt by mere association is not a concept of criminal law in this state. Matual v. State, 220 So.2d 833 (Miss.1969). All the evidence on which the State seeks to base a verdict of guilty is circumstantial. In order for circumstantial evidence to rise to that degree of proof necessary to establish a fact above mere suspicion it must be such as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. Love v. State, 208 So.2d 755 (Miss.1968); Westbrook v. State, 202 Miss. 426 , 92 So.2d 251 (1947).” 239 So.2d at 912-913 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin 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.