Hardesty v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Evidence corroborative of an accomplice need not directly connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. It is sufficient if it tends to connect him with its commission. “Evidence corroborating an accomplice and tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime need not be direct, but may be circumstantial only. “Where there is evidence in corroboration of an accomplice tending to connect a defendant with the commission of the crime charged, the sufficiency of such corroborating evidence is for the jury. “Where the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate an accomplice is challenged, this court will take the strongest view of the corroborating testimony that such testimony will warrant, and, if it can say that there is corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, it will uphold the verdict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · Scott v. State

2. ““No. 11. You are instructed that in this case the witnesses, Tom White, Jr. and Dan Bewley, who have testified herein, are admitted accomplices, and for that reason you cannot convict the defendant upon the testimony of said witnesses, Tom White, Jr., and Dan Bewley, unless you find that other evidence in the case than the testimony of the witnesses Tom White, Jr., and Dan Bewley, connect the defendant Orville L. Scott, Sr., with the commission of the offense. “You are further instructed that such corroborating evidence may be circumstantial, and it is not necessary that the required corroborative evidence cover every material point testified to by the said Tom White, Jr., and Dan Bewley, and it is sufficient if you find that the evidence of Tom White, Jr. and Dan Bewley is corroborated in some material point which tends to connect the defendant, Orville L. Scott, Sr., with the commission of the offense. “In this connection, you are further instructed that Tom White, Sr., and Lee Fairchild are likewise accomplices within the meaning of this instruction, and any acts or statements attributed to them concerning this alleged conspiracy shall not be considered as evidence against the defendant on trial unless you first find that a conspiracy involving this defendant has been proven by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You may, however, consider such acts and declarations, if any are shown by the evidence, provided they are corroborated by evidence other than evidence ”

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

3. ““Criminal Court of Appeals will not reverse a case for ruling on evidence occurring at the trial unless the record discloses a miscarriage of justice, or that the error relied on constituted substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights.””

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