Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 15 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) that there is no question as to the fact of the subject matter of the rumor, that is, of the previous arrest, conviction, or other pertinent misconduct of the defendant; "(2) that a reasonable likelihood exists that the previous arrest, conviction or other pertinent misconduct would have been bruited about the neighborhood or community prior to the alleged commission of the offense on trial; "(3) that neither the event or conduct nor the rumor concerning it occurred at a time too remote from the present offense; "(4) that the earlier event or misconduct and the rumor concerned the specific trait involved in the offense for which the accused is on trial; and "(5) that the examination will be conducted in the proper form, that is: `Have you heard,' etc., not `Do you know,' etc. [citations omitted] "And if the conclusion is reached to allow the interrogation, the jury should be informed of its exact purpose either at the conclusion thereof or in the charge.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bosin v. State · People v. Pratt

2. ““A conviction for a violation of Title 21, Okl.St.Ann., § 1123, supra, for lewd, indecent acts by an adult person as to a child under 14 years of age may be sustained upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, unless the testimony may appear inherently improbable and almost incredible. In that event, there must be corroboration by other evidence as to the principal facts to sustain conviction. In the case at bar, the testimony of the prosecutrix was neither improbable nor contradictory, but to the contrary; clear, and convincing, consistent, and substantially corroborated. It is not for this Court to substitute its judgment on question of fact, or of the weight of the evidence for that of the jury, where there is competent evidence from which the jury may reasonably and logically find that guilt of the defendant even though the evidence may be conflicting, or such that different inferences might reasonably be drawn thereupon.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Still v. State · Tollison v. State

3. ““In the cross examination of a witness called to testify to the defendant’s good reputation as a good, peaceable and law-abiding citizen, it is permissible to ask the witness on cross examination if he had heard of various specific acts of the defendant inconsistent with such reputation, but it is improper for the cross examiner to inquire of a witness concerning alleged acts of the defendant which are creatures of the examiner’s imagination and which did not occur, for the purpose of leaving the impression with the jury that his reputation is had.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Suggs v. State