6 Smith & H. 674 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 35 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that, if a person kills or injures two persons at the same time, but with separate blows or separate shots, he may be prosecuted and convicted for the assault committed upon each of his victims.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Irvin · Humphreys v. State

2. ““It is well settled that if a person kills or injures two persons at the same time, but with separate blows or separate shots, he may be prosecuted and convicted for the assault committed upon each of his victims. The underlying principle is well stated in Womack v. State, 47 Tenn. (7 Cold), [508, 511], 512, as that, ‘if the physical acts of assault and killing are distinct, and the intention to kill one is an intention formed, and existing distinct from and independently of the intention to kill the other, the two acts can not constitute a single offense of murder. ’ The court, in the case cited, recognized, however, that ‘a single felonious act may result in the death of two individuals,’ for which the offender may be indicted for the murder of one only, or may be indicted ‘for a single offense of murder in the act of slaying both.’ “The rule recognized by this court in Womack v. State, supra, is stated in 16 Corpus Juris, 283, Criminal Law, par. 485, thus: ‘Although crimes are not usually identical if committed against different persons, yet by the weight of authority where the same act or stroke results in the death of two persons an acquittal or a conviction of the murder of one bars a subsequent prosecution for the killing of the other, because the killing is but one crime and cannot be divided. ’ “In Kannon v. State, 78 Tenn. (10 Lea) 386, this court cited Womack v. State, supra, and Fowler v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 154 , for the proposition: ‘An indictment against”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Crocker v. State

3. ““The offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of an intoxicant is not an ingredient of the offense of homicide committed by the reckless driving, and is an unrelated offense. The commission of the misdemeanor was complete, under the facts proven herein, before the homicide was committed and was continued thereafter. Cases holding that conviction for a homicide committed with a pistol unlawfully car ried is no bar to a subsequent conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol clearly support tbis distinction. State v. Parker, 81 Tenn. 225 ; Heaton v. State, 130 Tenn. 163 , 169 S.W. 750 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eager v. State