Drollinger v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

145 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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"INSTRUCTION ON ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY An accomplice is one who, with criminal intent, acts with others and participates in the commission of a crime. Under the laws of the State of Indiana, an accomplice is competent as a witness for the State in the trial of a criminal case. The evidence of an accomplice is to be received and weighed by the jury in the same manner and according to the same rules as the evidence of any other witness. An accomplice who turns State's evidence and agrees to cooperate with the State in consideration of leniency or the dismissal of charges by the State, to be realistic, is being bribed, regardless of the fact that public policy has approved such action in the interest of effective law enforcement. It does not necessarily follow that because of the inducements offered to the accomplice, his testimony is false. It is, however, highly suspect. Because of the pressure of such undue influence upon the witness in such cases, the jury should have the evidence relating thereto. Such type of influence naturally impairs the credibility of such a witness. In this State, a Defendant may be found guilty solely on the evidence of a confessed accomplice. Because human nature would tend to cause accomplices to unload against their partners in their desire to clear themselves as much as possible of blame for a crime, such testimony should be closely serutinized by the jury or fact-finder. Such fact-finding bodies should have before it all the relevant circumstances”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gibbs v. State · Spence v. State

2. “"The mere fact that certain language or expressions are used in the opinions of this Court to reach its final conclusion does not make it proper language for instructions to a jury." Id. at 25 , 408 N.E.2d at 1241 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ludy v. State · Lambert v. State

3. “You are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account his or her ability and opportunity to observe: the memory, manner and conduct of the witness while testifying; and interest, bias or prejudice the witness may have; any relationship with other witnesses or interested parties; and the reasonableness of the testimony of the witness considered in the light of all of the evidence in the case. You should attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent and the theory that every wit ness is telling the truth. You should not disregard the testimony of any witness without a reason and without careful consideration. However, if you find that the testimony of a witness, is so unreasonable as to be unworthy of belief, or if you find so much conflict between the testimony of witnesses that you cannot believe all of them, then you must determine which of the witnesses you will believe and which of them you will disbelieve. In weighing the testimony to determine what or whom you will believe, you should use your own knowledge, experience and common sense gained from day-to-day living. You may find that the number of witnesses who testify to a particular fact, on one side or the other, or the quantity of evidence on a particular point does not control your determination of the truth. You should give th”

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