Reynolds v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The corroborative testimony need not directly link the accused to the crime or be sufficient in itself to establish his guilt. Otherwise the testimony of the accomplice would be valueless. The corroborative evidence is sufficient if it tends to connect the accused with the crime, and it is the cumulative weight of such evidence which supplies the test.” See also Minor v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 1 , 299 S.W. 422 (1927).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Paulus v. State · Reed v. State

2. ““The law forbidding a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice does not demand that there be direct evidence pointing to the accused as the offender, but merely requires that there be ‘other evidence tending to connect the defendant with offense committed.’ * * * Circumstances proved by credible witnesses may be as potent as direct testimony in tending to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. The state is not called upon to point to some single or isolated fact which in itself, unrelated to other proven facts, will be sufficient corroboration. It is the combined and cumulative weight of the evidence furnished by non-accomplice witnesses which supply the test. If by this rule it appears on appeal that before the jury there was proof confirming the testimony of the accomplice to material facts tending to connect the accused with the commission of the offense, the law is satisfied.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Paulus v. State · Walker v. State

3. ““The test for determining the sufficiency of such corroboration is to eliminate the evidence of the accomplice from consideration and then ascertain whether there is other evidence of an incriminating nature which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense, e. g. Colunga v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S. W.2d 866 (1972); Cherb v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 472 S.W.2d 273 ; Thomas v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 331 , 313 S.W.2d 311 ; Welden v. State, 10 Tex.App. 400 . The mere showing that an offense occurred is not sufficient corroboration. Colunga v. State, supra; Odom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 912 ; Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 427 S.W.2d 629 . Thus, evidence which verifies extraneous matters without tending to connect the accused to the crime is insufficient.””

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