Hickman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Allen v. State (2008), Koster v. State (2008)
40 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 Navarro v. State · King v. State · Gatlin v. State · Eastin v. State · Henderson 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“|7A person cannot be convicted of a felony upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. [An accomplice is one (who directly participates in the commission of an offense or) who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense: (Solicits, advises, encourages or coerces another person to commit it;) (or) (Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing it;) (or) (Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make a proper effort to do so.) ] It is contended that the witnesses]_ (name(s)) [was] [were] [an] accomplice(s). If you find that [he was] [they were], then _ (defendant(s)) cannot be convicted of _ (felony(s) being submitted) upon testimony of [that] [those] witnesses], unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect _ (defendant(s)) with the commission of the offense(s). Evidence is not sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice if it merely shows that the offense(s) [was] [were] committed and the circumstances of the commission. [The testimony of one accomplice is not alone sufficient to corroborate the testimony of another accomplice.] The sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is for you to determine. [You may, however, convict (the)(a) defendant of_(misdemeanor) upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, because that offense is only a misdemeanor.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wells 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.