State v. Socwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While the state may show that a crime was committed within the period of the statute of limitations prior to the filing of the information, yet where the evidence unequivocally shows that an offense was committed on a certain date, and the defendant presents an alibi as to that certain date, instructions, one of which authorizes a conviction within the limitation period and the other directs an acquittal if the defendant was not present on the date the state’s evidence shows the crime was committed, confound and confuse the jury. Such an instruction as the one given for the state fails to hold the jury to the point in issue. While this court has probably never ruled upon the question presented, the point has been ably reasoned by Ellison, J., in State v. Fellers, 140 Mo. App. 723 , 127 S. W. 95 . The St. Louis Court of Appeals followed this reasoning in State v. Campbell, 260 S. W. 542 . Inasmuch as the instructions conflicted, prejudicial error obtained. ’ ’”

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