Calhoun v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 1981
14 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 72 Okla. Crim. 339 - Blumhoff v. State · Heartsill v. State · Reed v. State · 37 Okla. Crim. 335 - Haas v. State · 73 Okla. Crim. 98 - Mills 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is not improper for trial judge, after a jury has been deliberating for some time, to call them into court to ascertain whether there is reasonable probability of reaching a verdict and to inquire of the likelihood of them doing so. However, the court must exercise great caution to say nothing tending to coerce an agreement, to indicate his feelings in the case, or to invade the province of the jury."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sowle v. State · Baker v. State““ ‘Before physical object * *' * is admitted in evidence, it must be sufficiently connected with the crime itself by proper identification. However, it is not nec essary that such identification should positively and indisputably describe such article. If it is sufficiently described to justify its admission in evidence, the lack of positive identification goes to the weight of such evidence rather than its admissibility’” [Emphasis added].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely show the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Burgess v. State · Glaze 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.