Tabor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “You are instructed that a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice alone, unless he has been corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof. In this connection you are instructed that an accomplice is one culpably implicated in the commission of the crime of which the defendant is accused; one who knowingly and voluntarily cooperates, aids or assists in the commission of the crime. The corroboration required must be the proof of substantial facts tending to incriminate the accused aside from and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, but the corroborating evidence need not necessarily connect the defendant directly with the offense; it is sufficient if it tends to do so. In this connection you are told as a matter of law that, under the evidence, the witnesses, Gene Sexton and Charles Maines who have testified on behalf of the State are accomplices to the commission of the crime charged against the defendant in this case, within the definition of ‘accomplice’ as given you in this instruction. Instruction Number 18 reads as follows: You are instructed that under all the evidence in this case the witness, Gene Sexton and the witness, Charles Maines, are accomplices, as a matter of law, and for that reason you cannot convict the defendant .upon the testimony of the said Ge”

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

2. “We interpret the mandatory aspect of 22 O.S.A. § 894 to be that which provides for the return of the jury to the courtroom, and for the notification of the parties to the trial that the jury is being returned for additional information or instructions. The determination of whether or not the jury’s request is required lies within the judicial discretion of the trial judge.”

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