Wyatt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2004
4 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 71 Okla. Crim. 75 - Robinson v. State · 58 Okla. Crim. 15 - Edwards v. State · 64 Okla. Crim. 332 - Gilroy v. State · 7 Okla. Crim. 165 - Teter 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No person can be convicted of murder * * *, unless the death of the person alleged to have been killed and the fact fact of the killing by the accused are each established as independent facts beyond a reasonable doubt.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cole v. State · Mayberry v. State““There is a long line of cases holding that applications for continuances are addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and that its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion, and absence of counsel is not made one of the grounds for a continuance. If, however, the trial court’s decision in overruling an application for continuance resulted in depriving a defendant of proper counsel, a new trial will be granted.” Gilroy v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 332 , 80 P.2d 602 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Helsper v. State““In every criminal prosecution the burden rests upon the state of proving the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. In prosecution for homicide the corpus delicti consists of two fundamental and necessary facts: First, the death; second the criminal agency of another as the cause; as applicable to this case, it was necessary to show, first, that the deceased died from the effects of a wound, and, second, that the wound was unlawfully inflicted by the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mayberry 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.