336 So. 2d 213 - Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In her testimony defendant denied that she told David Tindall to shoot her father to get him out of his misery. This testimony was contradicted by the deputy sheriff. The contradictory statement of defendant was made to the deputy sheriff under conditions similar to those made by the defendant in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975) in that the statements were made in both cases in response to questioning by officers after defendants requested an attorney. In Hass the defendant had been arrested when the contradictory statements were made, whereas in this case the defendant had not been arrested... . * * * * * * In the instant case the statement made to the deputy sheriff was not admissible by the state on its case in chief for the reason stated by the trial judge in his ruling. However, it was not the result of coercion, duress, threats or promises and was therefore admissible for the purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant as a witness." ( 336 So.2d at 215, 216 ).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Day v. State · 391 So. 2d 614 - Cooley v. State

2. “" Defendant further contends that it was the affirmative duty of the trial judge to explain to the jury that the testimony of the deputy sheriff was offered for impeachment purposes only. In Booker v. State, 326 So.2d 791 (Miss. 1976) we held that a defendant is entitled to an instruction that contradictory statements may not be used as proof of guilt but may be considered only in passing on his credibility as a witness. Defendant did not request such an instruction and did not object to the testimony when it was tendered. In the absence of a request for the instruction, no error was committed by the trial court. " 336 So.2d at 216-17 . (Emphasis added).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. King v. State · Simmons v. State

3. “"In her testimony defendant denied that she told David Tindall to shoot her father to get him out of his misery. This testimony was contradicted by the deputy sheriff. The contradictory statement of defendant was made to the deputy sheriff under conditions similar to those made by the defendant in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975) in that the statements were made in both cases in response to questioning by officers after defendants requested an attorney. In Hass the defendant had been arrested when the contradictory statements were made, whereas in this case the defendant had not been arrested... . * * * * * * In the instant case the statement made to the deputy sheriff was not admissible made to the deputy sheriff was not admissible by the state on its case in chief for the reason stated by the trial judge in his ruling. However, it was not the result of coercion, duress, threats or promises and was therefore admissible for the purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant as a witness." 336 So.2d at 215, 216 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Day v. State