May v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

93 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The conspiracy in the instant case did not terminate upon the completion of the murder. It was contemplated by the conspirators that Smith would receive compensation for the job. [At the time the complained of statements were made], Smith had not yet received all the compensation agreed upon * * *. We find that the object of the conspiracy had not been completed. [Citations omitted]."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cruz · State v. Cruz

2. ““A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice witness unless that testimony is 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. Gamez v. State · Kunkle v. State

3. “Prior to the 1977 amendment to Art. 38.22, supra, effective August 29, 1977, there was a long standing rule that an oral statement of an accused, whether made in response to an interrogation or not, while “in jail or other place of confinement or in the custody of an officer,” was ipso facto inadmissible unless it fell within a statutory exception to Art. 38.22, supra. Oral statements made by an accused to jail inmates concerning a crime for which the accused was in custody did not fall within one of these statutory exceptions and were therefore inadmissible. Jimmerson v. State, supra; Easely v. State, supra. The 1977 amendment to Art. 38.22, supra, now provides that the limitations of the statute apply only to statements that are the product of custodial interrogations; a voluntary oral statement is admissible if it is not the “result of” or does not “stem from custodial interrogation.” The statement from appellant to Mizelle Miller, which was made well after the effective date of the amendment, was not the product of a “custodial interrogation,” as that term is defined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See Newberry v. State, 552 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Bailey v. State, 532 S.W.2d 316 (Tex.Cr. App.1975). Moreover, there is no evidence that Mizelle Miller was ever acting as an agent of law enforcement officials in his conversation with the appellant .... [Emphasis added.]”

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