State v. Haugen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gaede · State v. Hogie

2. “[U]nder Section 29-21-14 it is not necessary to corroborate every fact testified- to by an accomplice. All that is required is that the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, corroborate' the testimony of an accomplice as to some ■material fact or facts, and tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. It is not necessary that the corroborating evidence be sufficient, in itself, to warrant a conviction or establish- a prima facie case. Furthermore, the State need not point to a single isolated fact which is sufficient corroboration, as it is the combined,and cumulative weight of the evidence other than the testimony of. the accomplice witness which satisfies, the statute. In cases involving the use of corroborative evidence, it is incumbent upon the trial court to first determine, as a matter of law, whether or not there is any, evidence corroborating the testimony of the accomplice, and only after the court has. found such corroborative evidence is it allowed to leave the question of the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence to the jury. [[Image here]] ... “.The corroboration . [of an accomplice’s testimony] need not directly link the accused to the crime.” Rather, corroboration merely requires that there be evidence “tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed.” Indeed, the language of Section 29-21-14 requires only corroborative evidence which “tends to connect” a defendant with the commission of an offense.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gaede · State v. Austin

3. ““We do not weigh or resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; those matters are for the trier of fact. We look only to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to determine if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rodriguez · City of Mandan v. Thompson