279 So. 2d 913 - Lindsey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1998
5 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 236 So. 2d 408 - Wright v. State · 276 So. 2d 652 - Nix v. State · Grady v. State · Mouton v. Levert-St. John, Inc. · Lee 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The case of Lee v. State, 242 Miss. 97 , 134 So.2d 145 (1961), involved the same question as raised here. There we said: “ ‘ “It is argued, however, that the prosecutrix had never seen the three persons who invaded her home prior to the date of the alleged crime, and since she had a pillow case tied over her head at the time the alleged crime was actually committed, the prosecutrix’ identification of the appellant as one of the persons who actually ravished her was based entirely upon her recognition of his voice, and that such voice recognition testimony was insufficient to prove the identity of her attacker beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. “ ‘ “But the courts have generally held that testimony identifying the accused by recognition of his voice is direct evidence, and the weight to be given such testimony is a question of fact for the jury to determine. See Annotation — Identification of Accused by his Voice, 70 A.L.R.2d 995 , 1012, and cases cited.” ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McInturf 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.