Oldham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Shack v. State (1972), Gann v. State (1975)
31 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 Woods v. State · Capps v. State · Beatty v. State · Myers v. State · Brown 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Appellants rely on the proposition that when a juror solicits conversation from a witness it is of itself prejudicial and thereby reversible. The authorities cited are Hutchins v. State (1894), 140 Ind. 78 , 39 N.E. 243 , and Woods v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 320 , 119 N.E.2d 558 . Hutchins dealt with a situation where the deputy prosecutor offered kindness and sympathy to a juror at a time which might cause sentiments of gratitude towards the prosecutor. In Woods police officers, who were witnesses for the State, and the sheriff visited with members of the jury during intermissions and recesses. * * * * * * "It is well settled that misconduct of the jury does not require reversal of a conviction unless it results in prejudice to the defendant. Williams v. State (1923), 193 Ind. 670 , 139 N.E. 657 ; Trombley v. State, supra [(1906), 167 Ind. 231 , 78 N.E. 976 .] In Hutchins, supra, there could be little doubt as to the possible prejudicial effect of the communication. It has been held that the presumption of prejudice as stated in Woods, supra, may be rebutted by counter-affidavits of the State, Myers v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 641 , 168 N.E.2d 220 . While we held in the Woods case that the conduct of the witnesses in visiting with the jury in a room set apart for them was prima facie prejudicial to appellant, in the instant case such prima facie presumption, if any, is overcome by the counter-affidavits produced by the State." (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions 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.