Bailey v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The court in its memorandum opinion * * * attempts to distinguish between this question presented in the instant case and that presented in Hollin v. Commonwealth, 158 Ky. 427 , 165 S.W. 407 , L.R.A. 1915E, 608 , upon the ground that the evidence here showed no surprise was suffered by the appellant through having been alone indicted. * * * However, we find ourselves unable to agree with or approve of the exception the learned trial judge here would make to the stated general rule repeatedly declared and announced by this court, that where by the terms of an indictment the defendant was called upon to defend himself against the charge of committing an offense alone, the court is unauthorized to instruct the jury to find him guilty if he was present and wilfully aiding and abetting another in committing the offense and where so instructing in such case, errs. The precise question we have here before us was presented in the case of Mulligan v. Commonwealth, 84 Ky. 229 , 1 S.W. 417, 419 . * * * `The object of the indictment is to make known to the accused with what particular crime he is charged, * * * to indict him as the only perpetrator of the crime, and then, on the trial, be permitted to prove that he was not guilty of the crime as charged, — the actual perpertator of it, — but that some one else not named in the indictment was guilty, and thus secure a conviction, would certainly violate the rule.'" Bailey v. Commonwealth, 295 Ky. 441 , 174 S.W.2d 719 , at pp. 721 and 722”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 196 So. 2d 897 - Newman v. State