429 So. 2d 569 - Mason v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

cited by 41 later decisions

states following

August 2016

most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably 451 So. 2d 743 - Neal v. State (1984), 667 So. 2d 1242 - Ballenger v. State (1995)

41 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 Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States · 430 So. 2d 832 - Read v. State · 381 So. 2d 983 - Jones v. State · 351 So. 2d 1342 - Gray 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“Proof of another crime is admissible where the offense charged and that offered to be proved are so connected as to constitute one transaction, where it is necessary to identify the defendant, where it is material to prove motive and there is an apparent relation or connection between the act proposed to be proved and that charged, where the accusation involves a series of criminal acts which must be proved to make out the offense, or where it is necessary to prove scienter or guilty knowledge. See, Smith v. State, 223 So.2d 657 (Miss. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1030 , 90 S.Ct. 1274 , 25 L.Ed.2d 542 (1970); Cummings v. State, 219 So.2d 673 (Miss. 1969), cert. den. 397 U.S. 942 , 90 S.Ct. 954 , 25 L.Ed.2d 122 (1970). ([ Gray v. State ], 351 So.2d [1342] at 1345 [Miss. (1977)]).”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Donald v. State · 773 So. 2d 309 - Flowers v. State
“[T]he uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to convict an accused. Where there is slight corroborative evidence, the accomplice's testimony is likewise sufficient to sustain the verdict.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Williams v. State · Jones v. State
“Only slight corroboration of an accomplice's testimony is require to sustain a conviction. Feranda v. State, 267 So.2d 305 (Miss.1972). The testimony of Harrison and Dorman was corroborated to some extent by Easterling and Patricia Thrasher. The credibility and reasonableness of the testimony of Harrison and Dorman was for the determination of the jury. Cochran v. State, 278 So.2d 451 (Miss.1973). It is within the province of the jury to accept parts of the testimony of any witness, and the jury may give consideration to all inferences flowing from the testimony. Grooms v. State, 357 So.2d 292 (Miss. 1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Mangum v. State · 759 So. 2d 1127 - Hathorne 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.