271 So. 2d 735 - Craft v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant's assignment of error is as follows: 1. The trial court committed fatal and reversible error in granting instruction number two for the state. 2. The trial court committed reversible error in granting instruction number three requested by the state. 3. The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error in allowing the state, over objections, to introduce repetitious pictures depicting the body of the deceased as such repetition of pictures was calculated and probably did prejudice and inflame the mind of the jury. 4. The verdict of the jury and the judgment entered is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the law. Instruction Number Two for the State reads as follows: The Court instructs the jury for the State of Mississippi that the law of self-defense as defined in these instructions does not imply or grant the right to attack. If you believe from the evidence the Defendant armed himself with a deadly weapon and sought the deceased with the formed felonious intention of invoking a difficulty with the deceased, or brought on, or voluntarily entered into any difficulty with the deceased with the designed and felonious intent to kill and murder the deceased, then the Defendant cannot invoke the law of self-defense no matter how imminent the peril in which he found himself.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 635 So. 2d 845 - Keys v. State · 301 So. 2d 561 - Reid v. State

2. “It is a rare case indeed, and this is not one of them, in which it is proper to give an instruction to the jury cutting off the right of a defendant in a murder prosecution to defend himself. Under the facts in evidence the giving of either of the quoted instructions was fatally prejudicial and requires reversal of the conviction and a remand of the case for a new trial. ( 271 So.2d at 736 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wadford v. State · 301 So. 2d 561 - Reid v. State

3. ““Trial courts should employ every means at their command to prevent the browbeating and unnecessary public humiliation of witnesses, most of whom would certainly prefer to be elsewhere and who have been brought to the stand by the compulsory process of the court. It is a tragic commentary on conditions of the present day that fear on the part of potential witnesses of being thus mistreated is one of the major difficulties confronting law enforcement authorities in the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals. The irony of the situation is, perhaps, that the lawyer who thus abuses his position defeats his own purpose, as the reaction of judges and juries alike to the mistreatment of a helpless witness by an attorney is one of revulsion and distaste.” 271 So.2d at 737 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thigpen v. Payton