Bean v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The Habitual Criminal Act, Title 21 O. S.A. § 51, was designed solely for the purpose of enhancing the punishment of those convicted of a felony after having been previously convicted of a penitentiary offense. Providing for increased punishment in such cases was its only purpose. To permit any testimony or evidence as tp the details of the former convictions * * * tends to place too much inference thereon and tends to further prejudice the defendant. The information should not be a part of this record as it tends to describe the crime in detail. It was said in the case of Ervin v. State, Okl.Cr., 351 P.2d 401 : ‘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.’ We are not ruling out the method of bringing the prison records clerk, with the judgment and sentence; nor the method herein used of the fingerprint cards as identification.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mike v. State · Baker v. State