Brannin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While under the authority of Russell v. State, 17 Okl.Cr. 164 , 194 P. 242 , this court has held that the instruction above referred to may constitute reversible error if proper objection is interposed thereto and exception to the rule of the court made thereon and set forth in defendant’s motion for new trial as grounds for granting the same, the court went on to say that the error was not of such fundamental character as to require reversal in the absence of objections. The defendant in the instant case failed to preserve the record, and the court was within the rules set forth in Russell v. State, supra, but, we nevertheless condemn the giving of such instruction and deem it our duty to call it to the attention of the trial courts in order that they may avoid walking the chalk line of error. For cases construing Title 22, § 701, O.S.A. see: McLaughlin v. State, 14 Okl.Cr. 192 , 169 P. 657 ; Russell v. State, supra; Luce v. State, 36 Okl.Cr. 49 , 252 P. 452 and Patman v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 415 , 247 P.2d 308 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Villines v. State · State v. Lakeside

2. ““ * * * (1) that the accused is the owner or operator of any place where intoxicating liquor is (2) sold or offered for sale, by the drink; or (3) kept for sale for consumption on the premises.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Constabile v. State · Blacketer v. State

3. ““There is no rule or reason why a court should not ask a proper and pertinent question, for the purpose of eliciting competent and material testimony. But we also know of no rules that would permit the court to assume the role of prosecutor. And when the court takes the place of the County Attorney, and examines and cross-examines witnesses, no matter what his motives may be, or what explanation or excuse he may offer for this course, his conduct can have but one effect upon the jury, and that is to impress them that the judge is convinced of the defendant’s guilt. In the minds of the jurors, it places the judge in a hostile attitude towards the defendant, and discredits any defense that he might offer. No judge has the right to indicate to the jury, by word or action, his opinion of the merits of any case being tried before him, or to in any way indicate his opinion as to the credibility of any witness examined. Absolute fairness should characterize every word and action of a judge.””

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