Pettigrew v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1995
8 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 9 Okla. Crim. 382 - Brown v. State · 86 Okla. Crim. 259 - Osborn v. State · State v. Harkins · 4 Okla. Crim. 467 - Brunson v. State · 75 Okla. Crim. 275 - Dunbar 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Direct and positive proof is not essential to establish the corpus delicti, and ■ it may be proved by circumstantial evidence. When it is proved by circumstantial evidence, the question should be submitted to the jury along with other questions of fact in the case, as to whether or not the state has established the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. “Where a dead body is found with marks of violence upon it, or other circumstances that indicate that deceased came to his or her death by unnatural or violent means, proof of such fact, independent of defendant’s confession, establishes the corpus delicti in a murder case.” See also: Osborn v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 259 , 194 P.2d 176, 178 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mayberry v. State““Where a party has placed a witness upon a witness stand believing he or she will testify to a given state of facts by reason of testimony given or statements made, and the witness then tesifies to a different state of facts injurious to the party calling said witness and in conflict with her previous testimony or statement, the party placing such witness upon the stand may impeach his or her testimony. This may be done upon the ground of surprise and to explain the placing of the witness upon the stand and to counteract the injurious effect of his or her testimony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cantrell v. State““The trial court should have instructed the jury, however, that the testimony given by the witness at the preliminary and in his sworn statement could only be considered for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of the witness, and not as substantial testimony to prove the truth of the statement. In the absence of such a request by defendant, and upon his failure to raise the matter in motion for new trial, the alleged error cannot be raised herein.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wahlgreen 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.