407 So. 2d 530 - Pace v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 31 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is no absolute rule requiring disclosure of an informer's identity. Recognition of the public interest and effective law enforcement has led to a privilege, although not absolute, of the prosecution to refuse disclosure of the identity of a confidential informer. Rovario v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). In Rovario , the United States Supreme Court stated: Where the disclosure of the informer's identity, or of the contents of his communication is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way. ( 353 U.S. at 60, 61 , 77 S.Ct. at 628 , 1 L.Ed.2d at 645 ). In applying this principle, we have stated: The proper rule regarding the circumstances under which the identity of the informer should be disclosed was stated in Young v. State, 245 So.2d 26 (Miss. 1971): Ordinarily, disclosure of the identity of an informer, who is not a material witness to the guilt or innocence of the accused, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Strode v. State, 231 So.2d 779 (Miss. 1970). On the other hand, where the informer is an actual participant in the alleged crime, the accused is entitled to know who he is. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). . . . ( 245 So.2d at 27 ). [ Mills v. State, 304 So.2d 651 , 654 (Miss. 1974)].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hannah v. State · 430 So. 2d 832 - Read v. State

2. “Certainly, if a commitment paper is sufficient to authorize the penitentiary officials to receive and imprison the person named therein for service of the sentence shown, it is admissible in court as evidence of the conviction of such person without the necessity of introducing the judgment of conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 453 So. 2d 1030 - DeBussi v. State

3. “recognize[d] that the time lapse between a present offense and prior convictions could be a relevant consideration.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 427 So. 2d 957 - Hall v. State