Carrillo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 177 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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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 asser-tain 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.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mac Donald v. State · Simmons v. State

2. ““A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. J.A.F.R. v. State · Villarreal v. State

3. ““Our law provides that a person commits an offense if without the effective consent of the owner he enters a habitation with intent to commit theft. “By the term ‘enter’ is meant to intrude any part of the body or any physical object connected with the body. “A person acts intentionally, or with intent with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. “A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. “A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. “Further, the indictment in this case having alleged that the entry, if any, was made with intent to commit the crime of theft, before you would be warranted in finding the defendant guilty, you must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the entry, if any, was so made with intent to commit the crime of theft. “All persons are parties to an offense who are guilty of acting together in the commission of an offense. A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both. “A person is criminal (sic) responsi”

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