Cambron v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 1990 · most notably Grey v. State (1980), White v. State (1976)
51 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 Kiefer v. State · Parker v. State · Simmons v. State · Messel v. State · Ellis 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to avoid the risk of convicting someone for a crime which he confessed, but which never occurred, a confession must be excluded, unless the State introduces corroborating evidence concerning the corpus delicti. Parker v. State (1949), 228 Ind. 1 , 88 N.E.2d 556 . The corpus delicti is variously defined. To establish the corpus delicti for the purpose of admitting into evidence a confession, this Court has required independent evidence of (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury (in homicide, a person deceased), and (2) somebody’s criminal act as the cause of the injury (in homicide, that the death was caused by the unlawful conduct of another person). Parker, supra; Simmons v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 489 , 129 N.E.2d 121 . The evidence establishing the corpus delicti may be circumstantial, as for any other material fact that must be proved. Messel v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 214 , [ 95 N.E. 565 ], In the case at bar, the police and the doctor presented evidence that Baumgartner had died from the effects of repeated blows to the head with a meat tenderizer. Most Indiana cases speak of the corpus delicti as the ‘specific crime charged’, or ‘the crime’ or, e.g., ‘the rape’. Parker, 228 Ind. at 6 , [ 88 N.E.2d 556 ]; Messel, 176 Ind. at 217 , 95 N.E. 565 . These cases may require that the State introduce some independent evidence of each of the elements of the crime in order to establish the corpus delicti.” (Citation omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Vanway v. State · Sluss 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.