State v. Swyningan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general test for determining whether a witness is an accomplice for purposes of § 634.04 is whether he could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the accused is charged. State v. Jensen, 289 Minn. 444 , 184 N. W. 2d 813 (1971). A corollary is that where the acts of several participants are declared by statute to constitute separate and distinct crimes, the participants guilty of one crime are not accomplices of those who are guilty of a separate and distinct crime. State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158 , 2 N. W. 2d 833 (1942). Thus, a person who feloniously receives stolen goods is not an accomplice of the thief, State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , 192 N. W. 194 (1923); and an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice of the principal, State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N. W. 2d 604 (1970); State v. Jensen, supra. Similarly, one who receives heroin cannot be an accomplice of a person charged with distributing heroin.” 304 Minn. 555 , 229 N. W. 2d 32 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Henderson · Tucker v. State

2. ““A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tucker v. State