330 So. 2d 580 - Ray v. State’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. “... Both instructions are objectionable for the reason that they assume that the crime charged was committed by another. Under the facts of this case, before appellant could be convicted as an accessory before the fact, the burden is upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the crime charged was committed by another, and to further prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the accused was present, consenting, aiding and abetting such person in the commission of the crime charged. Consequently, on retrial the jury should be so instructed. Smith v. State, 237 Miss. 498 , 115 So.2d 318 (1959); and Wages v. State, 210 Miss. 187 , 49 So.2d 246 (1950). ( 330 So.2d at 587 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 498 So. 2d 1224 - Van Buren v. State · 377 So. 2d 1060 - Jackson v. State

2. “[T]o limit the argument of counsel for the defense in a criminal prosecution is a matter of great delicacy, and should be done with the utmost prudence and caution... . When the time for the argument of counsel to the jury is restricted by the court, it should be very clear that the right of the accused to be heard has not been essentially impaired, and that an opportunity for making full and complete defense on the whole case has not been denied. What time would be necessary or reasonable for this purpose would depend, to a great extent, upon the character and circumstances of the particular case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 585 So. 2d 660 - Willie v. State

3. “[T]he court should not unduly limit the time allowed an accused to present his summation to the jury. The facts developed by the state to implicate the accused in the crime charged were involved and complicated, and, in our opinion, the trial court abused its discretion in restricting counsel for appellant to thirty minutes to argue this case... .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 671 So. 2d 581 - Walker v. State