Duck v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The next, and most serious, assignment of error urged by the appellants is that the court below erred in permitting the testimony of Scott and Birdsong to go to the jury, which was to the effect that they had taken the two defendants to the place where Ewing, the main state witness, was in bed from the effect of the shooting, and that Ewing then and there identified them as the persons who participated in the shooting. Their objection was that Ewing's statement was not made under oath, that it was hearsay evidence, and, therefore, inadmissible. It is the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible in evidence, though there are exceptions to the rule. If a party out of court accuses another of crime or makes statements against him, in the hearing of a third party, and the accused remains silent, or does not deny the accusation or statements affecting vitally his interest under certain conditions, the hearsay evidence of the third party as to the statement out of court is competent. But it is permitted to go into the record as evidence only upon the presumption that the silence or failure to deny, on the part of the accused, is an admission. .. . * * * * * * We are of the opinion that the evidence was hearsay, and that the proof, at the time the objection was made and subsequent thereto, never did create what could possibly be construed as an admission on the part of the defendants; so that the objection to the evidence as presented was correct. The officers, Scott an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 345 So. 2d 623 - Pickle v. State

2. “"The doctrine of accusatory statements made in the presence and hearing of the defendant is admissible, as admissions implied from silence are well established in this state. See Jones v. State, 228 Miss. 296 , 87 So.2d 573 (1956); Thurmond v. State, 212 Miss. 36 , 53 So.2d 44 (1951)." 247 So.2d at 691 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 345 So. 2d 623 - Pickle v. State