Daggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1970
3 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 95 Okla. Crim. 60 - Toms v. State · 86 Okla. Crim. 21 - Stokes v. State · 64 Okla. Crim. 382 - Luellen v. State · 79 Okla. Crim. 93 - Solomon v. State · Forrester 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trial court gave no instruction as to how this evidence was to be treated by the jury, and the defendant requested no such instruction. This Court has never held, as far as we have been able to determine, that in the absence of a request for the giving of an instruction concerning expert testimony, failure so to do will constitute reversible error. Nevertheless, in Toms v. State, 95 Okl. Cr. 60, 239 P.2d 812, 821 , we said: ‘We believe [that] the trial court should instruct the jury that such evidence is not conclusive but should be accorded such weight as the jury sees fit to give it.’ “In some cases, the failure to so instruct might constitute grounds for reversal, but in others grounds for modification because of the great weight the jury might attach to such expert testimony in the absence of an instruction covering the same, especially, if the results of the case hinged on the expert testimony. Failure to so instruct, in such event, might constitute a material failure.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peterson v. State““Moreover, the trial court, by no stretch of the imagination told the jury they could take the first offense as proved, but his instructions were clearly to the contrary. The defendant’s contention that the trial court did not instruct the jury they might find the defendant guilty of the offense of the act of October 27, 1956, alone, would have some merit in a proper case. But, under this record, it would be contrary to the admitted facts to have so instructed the jury. In fact, it would have been an invitation to the jury so to do.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shirley 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.