Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 343 P2D 194 - Wilcoxon v. State

Wilcoxon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 1963
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 84 Okla. Crim. 97 - Sadler v. State · 97 Okla. Crim. 299 - Brinegar v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 1 - Murphy v. State · 72 Okla. Crim. 339 - Blumhoff v. State · Sanders 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is not essential that corroborating evidence shall cover every material point testified to by [an] accomplice or be sufficient alone to warrant a verdict of guilty. If the accomplice is corroborated as to one material fact or facts by independent evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, the jury may from that infer that he speaks the truth as to all. Such corroborating evidence, however, must show more than the mere commission of the offense or circumstances thereof. “The weight and sufficiency of corroborating evidence is for the jury, and, where the jury has returned its verdict, this court will take the strongest view of the corroborating testimony that the evidence warrants.””
    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.