Ervin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 1981
20 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 State Ex Rel. Edelstein v. Huneke · 79 Okla. Crim. 285 - Little v. State · 79 Okla. Crim. 93 - Solomon v. State · Seeley v. Peabody · 93 Okla. Crim. 192 - Farley 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Introduction of the information for examination by the jury would serve no purpose but to advise the jury of the details of the crime constituting the former conviction. What would be accomplished to hold inadmissible evidence as to the details, then present to the jury for examination the information which recites all the details of the former conviction. It would be allowing indirectly that which would be directly prohibited. The information does not prove the conviction but only that a charge was filed. * * * The information is in no manner proof of a former conviction. * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bean v. State““While county attorney may interrogate defendant concerning other convictions for crime for the purpose of affecting his credibility, the trial court should not allow the examination to be enlarged by asking the details of the crime in which conviction was sustained, as such examination might cause jury to place undue emphasis on former conviction of accused and thus cause them to convict mainly because of bad reputation of the accused.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Benefield v. State““It is necessary to allege and prove three essential elements as requisite to an at tempt to commit a crime and they are: intent, performance of some act towards its commission, and failure of consummation. An adequate allegation as to failure of consummation is absolutely necessary as an element of the attempted commission of a crime.” (Emphasis original)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowers 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.