Dollie v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1971
5 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 57 Okla. Crim. 388 - Thurmond v. State · 53 Okla. Crim. 276 - Kent v. State · 62 Okla. Crim. 89 - Britton v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This instruction is flagrantly erroneous and incorrectly states the law to conspicuous prejudice of the defendant. It is generally recognized that when one is released from prison after having served his time for the crime committed, he has paid his debt to society for that particular crime and though his credibility can be affected by revealing his previous convictions to the juror [jíc] it can never be used for consideration in arriving at the penalty to be assessed, unless charged under the habitual criminal statutes. To hold otherwise would permit double punishment contrary to our standard of jurisprudence. Jurors are not permitted to indulge in any presumption that it is more probably that a person previously convicted of' crime will commit a subsequent crime, and for a juror to be instructed to take said previous conviction into consideration in affixing the punishment does the defendant tremendous injustice. Even though no exceptions to the instructions were taken, instruction number 8 was so highly prejudicial to the rights of the accused that it very easily could have resulted in excessive punishment and for that reason the judgment and sentence of the District Court of Washington County is hereby modified from two and one-half years in the penitentiary to one year in the penitentiary and otherwise affirmed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Speer v. State““You are instructed that the law indulges in no presumption, nor is a jury permitted to indulge in any presumption, that it is more probably that a person previously convicted of crime will commit a subsequent crime. Therefore, evidence of conviction for previous crimes is not to be considered by you for the purpose of determining the defendant’s guilt in this case, but only after you have found, if you do find, that the defendant is guilty in this case should the proof of convictions of former crimes be considered by you and then only to determine the penalty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Speer v. State““A trial judge in a criminal prosecution has the duty to preside with the utmost fairness and constant precaution as not to abridge the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial.” “The position occupied by trial judge in a criminal prosecution merits great respect and possesses tremendous influence upon the jurors, and the judge’s action, manner and comments must at all times reflect impartiality and his actions must never indicate his role to be that of a partisan for the state or the accused.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin 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.