60 Okla. Crim. 436 - McGee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is urged that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant ever received or had possession of the stolen property. “Webster’s Dictionary defines the word ‘receive’ thus: ‘To take, as something that is offered, given, sent,'paid, or the like; to accept.’ “The Century' Dictionary gives the word this definition: ‘To take from a source or agency of transmission; to take by transfer in a criminal manner.’ “While it is undisputed that the defendant hauled in his car the property in question from a place in Blaine county to Oklahoma City, the self-confessed thieves were with him on the trip and directed his action. We find no evidence showing a transfer or relinquishment of their possession of the stolen property to the defendant. “The law declares that: ‘All persons concerned in the commission of crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, are principals.’ Section 1808, St. 1931. “There is some testimony in the record tending to show that the defendant, with knowledge that it was stolen property assisted in the asportation of the same. “In the case of Brown v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 678 , 126 P. 263, 265 , we said: “ ‘Larceny has been held to be a continuing offense, and statutes providing that the thief may be prosecuted in any county into which he takes the stolen goods have been held to be constitutional, where the provisions of the Constitution are”

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

2. ““One who joins in with thieves and assists in the asportation of stolen property, knowing at the time he does so that the others acting with him are in the act of carrying away the property of another, must be held guilty as a principal.””

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