Elmer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . Numerous cases are cited referring to or discussing various instructions which point out to the jury the desirability and necessity of the individual jurors considering the views of the others in arriving at a verdict. Counsel designate such instructions by several names, notably the ‘Allen’ charge, since an instruction along that line was approved by the United States Supreme Court many years ago. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-502 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 . Counsel concede that such instructions have usually been upheld both in Federal and state courts but insist that in the light of the emphasis on the preservation of constitutional rights in recent United States Supreme Court cases reconsideration should here be given to the matter. In so doing, they refer to and discuss a certain fictional moving picture and divers law review articles. While in this instance we perceive no occasion for the trial court to have given the instruction when the jury had been out less than eleven hours, including the time for meals and incidental activities unconnected with a co-sideration of the cause, we are presented with nothing to show that the instruction was either unconstitutional or improper. An instruction similar to portions of the one in issue was approved by this court in Harris v. State, 2S Wyo. 487, 153 P. 881, 889 , Ann.Oas.l917A 1201, and an identical instruction was approved in Nicholson, v. State, 24 Wyo. 347 , 157 P. 1013, 1015-1016 . Undoubtedly the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoskins v. State

2. “Appellant points out and criticizes a number of passages from the closing argument of the State as prejudicial error. Before addressing ourselves to the merits of these criticisms we must consider whether defendant is in a position to complain. No formal objection was made except one at a point immediately before the close of the argument in chief when the speaker referred to the jury as being those who determine the standards of the community and spoke of the growing crime rate in the Nation. The court sustained the objection, but there was.no motion to have the statement stricken or to instruct the jury to disregard it. Earlier in the opinion, when we alluded to the prosecuting attorney’s opening statement, we noted the necessity of preserving objection to any error relied upon as prejudicial and reversible, and we at that time called attention to Murdock v. State, supra, 351 P.2d at 679, discussing a similar problem but applying specifically to the taking of testimony. On the same rationale, the necessity of an objection to a closing argument is a point which has often been separately discussed by the court. Perhaps the first time was in Horn v. State, 12 Wyo. 80 , 73 P. 705, 727 , where it was said that ‘to entitle such a matter as improper remarks of counsel to consideration in an appellate court, the record must show that proper objection thereto was made at the time, and overruled * * *.’ The ruling was reiterated in Bennett v. State, Wyo., 377 P.2d 634, 639 ; Cavaness”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gayler v. State

3. “that what little benefit to the proper administration of justice might result. . . is far outweighed by the disadvantages.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Winters v. United States