People v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * the purpose of an indictment or information is simply to inform the accused of the charge which he must meet at the trial. * * * As was said in People v. Beesly, 119 Cal.App. 82 , 6 P.2d 114, 115 , 970: ‘There, in a nutshell, is stated the principle of our present simplified form of pleading a criminal offense — the accused is entitled to notice of the offense of which he is charged but not to the particular circumstances thereof, * * *.’ Where this information came solely from the indictment, as at common law, more particularity was required, but under our system, the law now provides, as part of the accusatory procedure, that in every criminal case the accused is entitled to a transcript * * People v. Curtis, 36 Cal.App.2d 306 , 98 P.2d 228, 233 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Williams · 184 Cal. App. 2d 317 - People v. Mason

2. ““With the record in the condition in which we find it, we must look into the effect of the error of the trial court in connection with the disposition of the appeal in the light of the provisions of section 4% of article VI of our state Constitution, which forbids us to set aside any judgment or grant a new trial unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, this court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The phrase ‘miscarriage of justice’, used as descriptive of that condition of a cause, has no hard and fast definition. It seems to us that where the record discloses the commission of errors at the trial the appellate court must first find that upon the record it is seriously doubtful that without such errors the defendant would have been convicted, before a reversal of the judgment is justified. (People v. Adams, 76 Cal.App. 178,186 [ 244 P. 106 ].) As was said in People v. Black, 73 Cal.App. 13, 38 [ 238 P. 374 ] : “It is the law that, when applying the provisions of section 4% of article VI of the Constitution to an entire cause, we must direct a reversal when we are unable to say ‘whether appellant would or would not have been convicted but for the errors of the court’. (People v. Degnen, 70 Cal.App. 567 [ 234 P. 129 ].)” . . . We have read the instructions given, together with the evidence, and have no hesitancy in saying that under the evidence but one verdict could be reached, and t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 109 Cal. App. 2d 867 - People v. Haywood

3. ““It is established in our law that it is for the judge presiding at the perjury trial to determine the materiality of the allegedly perjured testimony. The question of the materiality of evidence, whenever or however it arises, is always one for the court. Whenever the question of the materiality of evidence arises during the ordinary trial of a cause when one party offers evidence and its materiality is put in issue by appropriate obj ection, it is concededly a question of law for the court. The same is true when the question of the materiality of the charged false testimony arises in a trial for perjury. * * * The court’s instructions to the jury that appellant’s answers to these and other questions propounded to him in the grand jury room were material * * * were correct and proper.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Chee