Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On cross-examination there was some degree of confusion in the boy’s testimony, but the trial judge was in a much better position to determine his ability to testify than this Court. He had an opportunity to observe witnesses appearance, [sic] his facial expression, his emotions and his reactions. The test under the Statute is measured by whether or not a minor under 10 years of age appears capable of reviewing just impressions of the facts concerning which he is examined, or of relating them truly. Measured by this test, the witness indicated he was capable of such impressions of simple facts that he testified to. It was not made to affirmatively appear that he was incompetent. “This Court passed upon the question in the case of Stuart v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 103 , 249 P. 159 : ‘The question of the competency of a witness under 10 years of age is a mixed question of law and fact addressed peculiarly to the discretion of the trial court. When a witness is objected to on the ground of incompetency by reason of nonage, the trial court should examine and determine the witness’ competency, and if it affirmatively appear that the witness is incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which such witness is examined or of relating them truly, such testimony should be rejected ; otherwise it should be admitted.’ ””

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

2. ““Defendant objects to the language Detestable and abominable as being prejudicial. “In the case of Roberts v. State, 57 Okl. Cr. 244, 47 P.2d 607 , the crime of Sodomy was stated in the identical language which is set forth in the Statute and the case at bar. The Court said: ‘The detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or a beast made punishable by Penal Code (section 2553 St.1931), includes not only the offense of sodomy, but any other act as bestial, or unnatural copulation.’ ‘An information charging the commission of the crime against nature, in the language of the statute, with a person named, is sufficient.’ “The Instructions described the crime in the same manner as it was described in the Information to which there was no objection, and in the same language as the Statute. Therefore, it did not constitute error of a fundamental nature * * * »”

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