Bosin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1994
9 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 88 Okla. Crim. 299 - Doser v. State · Lung v. State · Wilson v. State · Miller v. State · Gilmore v. State
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““From a thorough reading of the transcript we find little evidence to bolster defendant’s argument. No where in his testimony did defendant state that the prosecutrix gave her affirmative consent. Even from his own testimony the closest he can come to consent is when he stated she ‘raised up’ when he moved to take off her underpants (Tr. 96) and the following colloquy occurring at Tr. 99: ‘Q. Did you think this was something she wanted to do? ‘A. Yes “This Court is not impressed with defendant’s contention that these incidents indicate affirmative consent, and so we find the trial court did not err in refusing his requested instruction. . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Costilla v. State“No judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted by any appellate court of this state in any case, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury or for error in any matter of pleading or procedure, unless it is the opinion of the reviewing court that the error complained of has probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Avard v. Leming““No person shall be sentenced as a second and subsequent offender under Section 51 of Title 21, or any other section of the Oklahoma Statutes, when a period of ten (10) years has elapsed since the completion of the sentence imposed on the former conviction; provided, said person has not, in the meantime, been convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or felony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clonce 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.