Cooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he question of whether an individual is qualified to testify as an expert is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. This Court does not reverse such decisions absent a showing that this discretion *Page 335 has been abused, that is, that the witness was clearly not qualified.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 859 So. 2d 320 - McGowen v. State · 708 So. 2d 1327 - Duplantis v. State

2. “[t]his Court and federal courts have addressed the effect of a variance between the evidence adduced by the government and the language of an indictment. With respect to a larceny indictment, this Court has stated: The description of an indictment must be of sufficient particularity to enable the court to determine that such property is the subject of larceny and to advise the accused with reasonable certainty of the accusation he will be called upon to meet at the trial and to enable him to plead the judgment rendered thereat in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense without other proof. Grimsley v. State, 215 Miss. 43, 48-49 , 60 So.2d 509, 511 (1952). For the variance between the indictment and the proof to be fatal, however, it must be a material and prejudicial variance. Jackson v. State, 450 So.2d 1081, 1082 (Miss.1984). See also United States v. Moree, 897 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir.1990) (variance which does not modify the offense charged is not error); United States v. Cochran, 697 F.2d 600 (5th Cir.1983); McCullum v. State, 487 So.2d 1335 (Miss.1986). The strict rule of Johnson v. State, 186 Miss. 405 , 191 So. 127 (1939), that ownership must be proven as averred beyond a reasonable doubt has already been implicitly overruled in cases such as Mahfouz v. State, 303 So.2d 461 (Miss.1974), and Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601 (Miss.1980). The rule from Jackson quoted above is now the proper focus of any inquiry regarding the adequacy of a larceny indictment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 755 So. 2d 521 - Potts v. State · 805 So. 2d 556 - Fulcher v. State

3. “By specifying the date, the property taken, and the location from which it was taken, the indictment was sufficient to put the Coopers on notice of the crime with which they were charged and to prevent subsequent prosecution for the same incident. There is no suggestion of any defense that could have been mounted against Johnny Benefield as the owner, rather than the estate of Martha Benefield, had the Coopers known beforehand what the proof on ownership would show.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 755 So. 2d 521 - Potts v. State · 805 So. 2d 556 - Fulcher v. State