Holcomb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
January 1991
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. State · Findley v. State · Emmett v. State · Howard v. State · Carter 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether the two-prong test of Code Ann. § 38-307 [now OCGA § 24-3-6] for admitting a hearsay statement as a dying declaration has been met, both the trial court and the jury are involved. The trial court must first determine whether prima facie the requirements of the Code section are satisfied. E.g., Simpson v. State, 168 Ga. 598 (2a) ( 148 SE 511 ) (1929); Swain v. State, 149 Ga. 629 (4) ( 101 SE 539 ) (1919). If the trial court determines that a prima facie showing has been made, the statement is admitted into evidence, and the jury makes the ultimate determination as to whether the declarant was in the article of death at the time the statement was made and was conscious of his condition. E.g., Carter v. State, 227 Ga. 788, 794 ( 183 SE2d 392 ) (1971); Emmett v. State, 195 Ga. 517, 533-34 ( 25 SE2d 9 ) (1943), overruled on other grounds, Howard v. State, 237 Ga. 471, 474 ( 228 SE2d 860 ) (1976); Findley v. State, 125 Ga. 579 (1) ( 54 SE 106 ) (1906).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kitchens v. State“[d]eclarations by any person in the article of death, who is conscious of his condition, as to the cause of his death and the person who killed him, shall be admissible in evidence in a prosecution for homicide.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kitchens v. State“`is not cause for a new trial, where the State does not rely for conviction solely on dying declarations, and where there is no appropriate and timely written request for instructions as to them.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kitchens 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.