3 Tenn. Crim. App. 424 - McAfee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Supreme Court of this State has addressed itself many times to the question of the character and quality and quantum of evidence necessary to consti tute legally sufficient corroboration of an accomplice. The rule, simply stated, is that there must be some fact testified to, entirely independent of the accomplice’s testimony, which, taken by itself, leads to the inference, not only that a crime has been committed, but also that the defendant is implicated in it; and this independent corroborative testimony must also include some fact establishing the defendant’s identity. State v. Fowler, 213 Tenn. 239 , 373 S.W.2d 460 ; Boulton v. State, 214 Tenn. 94 , 377 S.W.2d 936 . This corroborative evidence may be direct or entirely circumstantial, and it need not be adequate, in and of itself, to support a conviction; it is sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule if it fairly and legitimately tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged. Sherrill v. State, 204 Tenn. 427 , 321 S.W.2d 811 . “In Binkley v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 336 , Presiding Judge Walker wrote for this Court: ‘Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that slight circumstances may furnish the necessary corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony. Alexander v. State, 190 Tenn. 260 , 229 S.W.2d 331 ; Garton v. State, 206 Tenn. 79 , 332 S. W.2d 169 . ‘In Stanley v. State, 189 Tenn. 110 , 222 S.W.2d 384 , the Court said: “(1) The sufficiency of evidence required to corroborate a”

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