French v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 1993
12 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 73 Okla. Crim. 370 - Johnson v. State · 58 Okla. Crim. 275 - Denton v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 5 - Berwick v. State · Shaffer v. State · Brookshire 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Had the trial court only the statement of counsel, under oath, of his opinion of the defendant's sanity, after several conferences with him and nothing else... this Court would agree that the trial court would have been remiss in not granting the defendant a trial to determine present sanity." supra at 163 (Citing French v. State, 397 P.2d 909 (Okl.Cr. 1964). (emphasis added).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Koonce v. State · Cox v. State““This Court is of the opinion that the giving of oral explanations of written instructions is a dangerous practice, and one that should be avoided if at all possible by all trial courts. This, we feel, is borne out by the proceedings in the instant case, when the following conversation took place between the trial judge and the foreman of the jury: ‘Court: Do you have a question, Mr. Foreman? A. Yes, sir. We are in doubt of what life imprisonment is. Some say it means ten, fifteen or twenty years. That is what the hold-up is. We want to know. Court: Gentlemen, life imprisonment means life imprisonment unless in the discretion of the Parole Board approved by the Governor of the State it is reduced by parole. A person is eligible for parole provided he meets all of the requirements and it is recommended by the Parole Board and approved by the Governor, at the end of fifteen years. Mr. Stipe [Attorney for defendant]: I object. When you gave the instructions — I will make my record later. ‘The Court: Gentlemen, that is all I can say. Foreman: Now, can one be given life imprisonment without Pardon and Parole ? Court: My answer is NO.’ “Did this constitute reversible error ? Was it harmful and prejudicial to the defendant ? We cannot help but feel that the statement was harmful to the defendant. It is evident that this jury was considering the sentence of life imprisonment when the trial judge made his statement: ‘Gentlemen, life imprisonment means life imprisonment unless in the t”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State““The Court would again remind all trial judges to project themselves into the trial of a criminal case as little as possible. They should remember that any action they take or remark they may make as judge, will carry greater weight with the jury than anything that is said or done by anyone else in the court room.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gamble 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.