Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 643 SW2D 947 - Coleman v. State

Coleman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
November 2011
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2011

17 state decisions

1301982199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Wong Sun v. United States · Brown v. Illinois · Dunaway v. New York · Taylor v. Alabama

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

  1. “You are instructed that a person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession. Conduct is not rendered involuntarily merely because the person did not intend the results of his conduct. Therefore, if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the occasion in question the defendant, Sherman Joiner, did cause the death of Edith E. Smith, by shooting her with a gun, as alleged in the indictment, but you further believe from the evidence or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that the shooting was the result of an accidental discharge of the gun while Edith E. Smith and defendant was [sic] struggling or scuffling and was not the voluntary act or conduct of the defendant, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict not guilty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““In the case at bar the appellant had been given the Miranda warning several times before he actually made his statement. He indicated he understood his rights and waived them. The time period from the arrest until the confession was completed was only about five hours. The only intervening circumstance was the search for the body and weapon. However, in contrast with Brown, Duna-way and Taylor, the police officers in the case at bar had probable cause to arrest the appellant and they were not engaged in purposeful and flagrant official misconduct. “Additionally, the appellant’s initial remarks and other statements were not initiated through interrogation but were spontaneous remarks by the appellant. .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “While I agree that the existence of probable cause and the procurement in good faith of an arrest warrant are highly probative of ‘the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct,’ the issue does not turn on this consideration alone; ... the majority has placed virtually all emphasis on this factor, along with warnings given appellant, without considering that, under the facts recited in the opinion, there were no ‘intervening circumstances’ between the arrest and confession, or the ‘temporal proximity’ of the arrest and the confession was only three and a half hours.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.