State v. King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although a prosecutor should withdraw upon finding it necessary to testify on behalf of the State, he has no such duty when called as a defense witness. * * * [citing authorities], “Defendant’s pretrial Starr -exclusion motion was based on the proposition the defense might call Mr. Starr to the witness stand. It would appear the motion was premature. As noted above this is a matter resting in trial court’s discretion and the exercise thereof is governed by status of the evidence at the time defendant wishes to make his move. * * * [citing authorities]. The court below was therefore fully justified in overruling defendant’s motion prior to introduction of any testimony.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Fitz

2. “It is commonly understood corroborating evidence, as instantly applied, is complementary to that previously given and tends to strengthen or confirm it; additional evidence of a different character on the same point. [Authorities cited.] Furthermore, the corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony need not be strong, nor must it confirm every material fact testified to by the accomplice. It need only tend to connect an accused with the commission of a given crime. Put in the abstract, as it is by defendant, we are satisfied the isolated “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard he here invites us to apply is misconceived.”

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

3. “No general rule can be stated with respect to the quantum of evidence corroborating an accomplice necessary to warrant a conviction. Each case must be governed by its own circumstances. Evidence which merely raises a suspicion the accused is the guilty party of course is not sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice to warrant a conviction.”

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