Warren v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Carrillo v. State (1979), Reed v. State (1988)
73 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Davis v. Alaska · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Harrington v. California
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The test as to the sufficiency of the corroboration is to eliminate from consideration the evidence of the accomplice witness and then to examine the evidence of other witnesses with the view to ascertain if there be inculpatory evidence,. that is evidence of incriminating character which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. If there is such evidence, the corroboration is sufficient, otherwise it is not.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Although appellant asserts otherwise, the corroboration need only tend to connect the accused with the offense charged. Article 38.14, V.A.C.C.P. [citation omitted], and make the accomplice’s testimony more likely true than not. The accomplice need not be supported as to every element of the offense. Sheffield v. State, [Tex.Cr.App. 371 S.W.2d 49 ]. In receiving and concealing cases, the corroboration required includes corroboration of defendant’s knowledge that the property is stolen. Sanders v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 526 , 164 S.W.2d 685 (1942); Hall v. State, 373 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App.1963), . . .” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fortenberry v. State“Appropriate instructions have been held to cure improper references by prosecutors to extraneous offenses or other matter not in the record, Bermudez v. State, 504 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Hodge v. State, 488 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), and by witnesses volunteering answers. Bolden v. State, 504 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). The witness’ uncalled for testimony here, while undoubtedly improper, was cured by immediate response of the trial judge and is not of such a prejudicial nature that an unalterable impression was produced in 0the minds of the jurors. It was not error to fail to grant a mistrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'DELL 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.