Calloway v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Jones v. State (1999), Noel v. State (1998)
26 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 Hill v. State · Williams v. State · Larimore v. State · Mills v. State · Vickers 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mere presence, acquiescence, silence or knowledge that a crime is being committed, in the absence of a legal duty to act is not sufficient to make a person an accomplice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Jones v. State“[A] mistrial is such an extreme remedy that it should not be used unless there has been error “so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial or when the fundamental fairness of the trial itself has been manifesdy affected.” Puckett v. State, 324 Ark. 81, 89 , 918 S.W.2d 707, 711 (1996). A mistrial should only be declared when an admonition to the jury would be ineffective. Id. Moreover, the trial court is given broad discretion to control counsel in closing arguments, and this court will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Lee v. State, 326 Ark. 529 , 932 S.W.2d 756 (1996). We said in Lee: “[Rjemarks that require a reversal are rare and require an appeal to the jurors’ passions.” 326 Ark. at 532 , 932 S.W.2d at 758 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Muldrew v. State“proffered instruction and holding that AMI Crim.2d 401 accurately and completely reflects the law of accomplice liability). We hold that the circuit court did not err in rejecting Jackson's proposed instruction. V. Accomplice As Accessory After the Fact Jackson argues next that AMI Crim.2d 401 defines accomplice as”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson 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.