King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Brown v. State (2008), Davis v. State (2002)
73 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 Burks v. United States · CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood · Forman v. United States · Brown v. Schweitzer · Harris 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person cannot be convicted of a felony upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. [An accompbce is one (who directly participates in the commission of an offense or) who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense: (Solicits, advises, encourages or coerces another person to commit it;) (or) (Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing it;) (or) (Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make a proper effort to do so.)] It is contended that the witnesses] _ (name(s)) [was] [were] [an] accomplice(s). If you find that [he was] [they were], then _ (defendant(s)) cannot be convicted of_(felony(s) being submitted) upon testimony of [that] [those] witness [es], unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect _ (defendants)) with the commission of the offense(s). Evidence is not sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice if it merely shows that the offense(s) [was] [were] committed and the circumstances of the commission. [The testimony of one accompbce is not alone sufficient to corroborate the testimony of another accomplice.] The sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is for you to determine. [You may, however, convict (the) (a) defendant of _(misdemeanor) upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, because that offense is only a misdemeanor.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Choate v. State · Williams v. State“This court treats the denial of a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict; substantial evidence must be forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion and conjecture. On appellate review, it is only necessary for this court to ascertain that evidence which is most favorable to appellee, and it is permissible to consider only that evidence which supports the guilty verdict.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Choate v. State · Johnson v. State“Our law is well-settled that a witness's status as an accomplice is a mixed question of law and fact, and that when the status of a witness presents issues of fact, the defense is entitled to have the question submitted to the jury. The question must be submitted to the jury where there is any evidence to support a jury's finding that the witness was an accomplice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.