Clonce 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. “We do not agree with the defendant that the burden is on the State to prove when a defendant completed his sentence. The Statute provides a benefit to those defendants who fall within its terms. To be afforded this benefit, a defendant merely has to come forward with information that is readily available to him and is easily susceptible to confirmation. The defendant, therefore should be the one to raise this bar to the State’s proof of former convictions. Should the situation arise where the State seeks to admit evidence of a former conviction which has been completed ten years prior thereto, then the defendant should move for a hearing outside the presence of the jury to establish the date the sentence of the prior conviction was completed. The judge may then rule on the competency of the evidence sought to be admitted as to the former conviction. This procedure would prevent incompetent evidence being presented to the jury. This evidentiary hearing would also preclude the jury from' obtaining information that would improperly allow it to determine the ratio of years actually served to years sentenced and the possibility of prejudice to the defendant resulting therefrom. See, Jones v. State, Okl.Cr., 554 P.2d 830 (1976).”

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

2. ““(T]he possession of recently stolen goods is a strong circumstance to be considered in a larceny prosecution; but the possession of stolen property alone, and without any additional testimony, will not sustain a charge of larceny. It may be slight and wholly circumstantial, but there must be some evidence to connect the defendant with the original asportation. . .”

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

3. ““... However, we would point out affective October 1, 1978, under the New Evidence Code of 12 O.S., Ch. 37, § 902, (S.B.No. 276 effective October 1,1978) [12 O.S.Supp.1978, § 2902] that the certified copy of the judgment and commitment from the Federal Court in Oklahoma without the triple certification, would be admissible.””

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