61 Okla. Crim. 435 - Kitchen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2009
13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on People v. Howard · State v. Wilson · White v. Commonwealth · Hardtke v. State · State v. Williams
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essential guilt of rape, except with the consent of a female over 14 years of age, consists in the outrage to the person and feeling of the female. Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Boyd v. State · Couch v. State““In cases of this kind, when the offense is committed upon a child of tender years and who, for want of knowledge and experience, may be incapable of giving testimony, it often happens, as in this instance, that direct and positive proof of penetration cannot be made, and in such cases the utmost reliance is placed on the testimony of the medical witnesses. . . . “In this case there was no evidence whatever of external violence or injury to the parts; nothing whatever that would indicate penetration. It does not appear that any complaint or statement was made by the little girl to her mother or to the officers who discovered her with the defendant. “There being no proof of penetration, either direct or circumstantial, we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the crime was consummated, and for this reason the court should have sustained the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.