Ethridge v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 11 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is now the opinion of this Court that the word ‘shall’ as used in Sec. 926, Title 22, supra, is to be construed as mandatory to the extent that the jury should make a diligent, sincere, and strenuous effort to arrive at a verdict as to the punishment as well as the guilt or innocence without distraction or invitation to do otherwise. In such cases where defendant requests the jury to assess and declare the punishment there is but one instruction required as to the punishment and that should be in substance as follows : ‘Should you find from the evidence, under the instructions and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty, it shall be your duty to assess the punishment therefore, in your verdict (without provisions of the law set out in the instruction.)’ “To go further and extend the invitation to leave the punishment to the court if they fail to agree would not be in compliance with defendant’s request and would be considered detrimental to the statutory and constitutional rights of the defendant.””

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

2. ““4. An information may be amended in matter of substance or form at any time before the defendant pleads, without leave, and may be amended after plea or on order of the court where the same can be done without material prejudice to the right of the defendant; no amendment shall cause any delay of the trial, unless for good cause shown by affidavit. 22 O.S. § 304.” “5. Where an information charges the offense of Petit Larceny After Former Conviction of Petit Larceny of three cartons of cigarettes and the evidence introduced on behalf of the State discloses the larceny of five cartons, it is not error for the trial court to allow the State to amend the information to conform to the truth. Since said amendment charges the identical offense and does not enhance the punishment, such an amendment is an amendment as to form and may be made with proper safeguards after the trial has begun.””

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

3. ““An admonition to a jury not to consider the remarks of counsel, or witness, usually cures an error unless it is of such nature as, after considering the evidence, appears to have determined the verdict.””

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