55 Cal. App. 112 - People v. Hulbart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant contends that, regardless of the boy’s age, the evidence shows him to be an accomplice because of his intelligence, education, and understanding of moral questions. . . . Without a doubt, the testimony of an accomplice is required to be corroborated in order to sustain a conviction. Section 1111 of the Penal Code expressly so provides. But, by an amendment of that section in 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 760), we now have a legislative definition of an accomplice as ‘one who is liable to prosecution .for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the ease in which the testimony of the accomplice is given. ’ The gist of the offense defined by section 288 is that the acts shall be committed upon or with the body ‘ of a child under the age of fourteen years. ’ In the present case the prosecuting witness, a boy of but twelve years, could not be guilty, with this defendant—who was over fourteen years of age—of the offense defined in section 288, for as we have seen, the gist of the offense is that the acts shall be committed upon or with the body of one under the age of fourteen years.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 45 Cal. App. 2d 724 - People v. Slaughter