Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1993
7 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 70 Okla. Crim. 228 - Green v. State · 61 Cal. App. 291 - People v. Klopfer · 65 Okla. Crim. 432 - Taylor v. State · 78 Okla. Crim. 160 - Hudson v. State · 102 Cal. App. 353 - People v. Ball
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant further contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence the theft of blank checks and the check-writing machine stolen from the office of Mr. Poston. This evidence was clearly admissible, since it established the loss of the check-writing machine, and the check book, as corroboration of Mr. Poston’s testimony to the effect that the check uttered by the defendant herein was forged. In 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 691, p. 1138 (N.61), the rule with reference to the admissibility of such evidence is stated as follows: ‘Transactions which are so related to, and connected with, the forgery charged as to be otherwise admissible are not inadmissible because they tend to prove a wholly dissimilar crime, particularly where they constitute part of a connected or continuous transaction on the part of accused.’ It is true the testimony to which objection is made may have had a tendency to indirectly connect appellant with another crime, yet that fact alone would not de prive the State of the right to show how the appellant might have become possessed with the cheek. State v. McDonald, 116 Wash. 668 , 200 P. 326 . See also People v. Klopfer, 61 Cal.App. 291 , 214 P. 878 , wherein the government was permitted to offer evidence that the place of business of the witness had been burglarized and blank checks had been stolen, and the defendant had uttered some of the checks which had been forged, and had one on his person.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holman v. State““Where there is evidence from which the jury could reasonably and logically find the defendant guilty of the crime charged, in the absence of unusual circumstances, this Court will not set aside the jury’s verdict on account of insufficiency of the evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ross 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.