Cherry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1991
13 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 84 Okla. Crim. 97 - Sadler v. State · 84 Okla. Crim. 176 - Storer v. State · 95 Okla. Crim. 76 - Logan v. State · Potter 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It has been held that, whether one intended to commit a crime in a house is determined by the intent of the individual at the time the unlawful entry was made. Logan v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 76 , 239 P.2d 1044 . Intent was one of the questions of fact for the determination of the jury, and it was their sole province to weigh the evidence and the facts. Sadler v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 97 , 179 P.2d 479 ; Potter v. State, Okl.Cr., 266 P.2d 647, 649 , wherein we said: `Exclusive of the direct testimony to the facts of the burglary, the circumstantial evidence of the state, in the absence of any reasonable explanation of the defendant, is sufficient to support the conviction.' "That the jury did not believe the defendant's explanation is apparent."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Caskey v. State““[T]his record discloses that this defendant had worked on two or three cases on previous occasions as an informer with Officer Stege of the Tulsa Police Department. . . . The record shows this defendant also worked with officers other than Officer Stege. [W]e believe that this is a matter which the trial court should have given consideration in assessing punishment. . . .We therefore are of the opinion that the minimum punishment of 10 years under the provisions of Title 21, § 51, O.S.1951, subd. 1, is in keeping with justice under the circumstances and will be sufficient in this case; the judgment and sentence is accordingly so modified, Title 22, § 1066, O.S.1951,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cothrum v. State““In a burglary case, where breaking and entering is definitely proved, the fact that defendant had no opportunity to commit a felony inside the building before his apprehension is not controlling of the question of his intent. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hart 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.