67 Okla. Crim. 16 - Kizer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 1986
20 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 7 Okla. Crim. 590 - Watson v. State · 17 Okla. Crim. 308 - Noel v. State · 57 Okla. Crim. 388 - Thurmond v. State · 35 Okla. Crim. 263 - Sutton v. State · 60 Okla. Crim. 99 - Neely v. State
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The repeated asking of incompetent questions, which clearly have for their purpose the intimation of something to the jury that is either not true or not capable of being proven if true, is wrong, and such conduct of counsel is not cured because the court sustains the objections to the questions.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State · Billy v. State““* * * and the action of the county attorney in asking questions tending to discredit, bias, and prejudice the defendant’s rights before the jury when he had no proof to show the facts inquired about were true in the event the defendant denied them, clearly show that the defendant Joe Kizer was denied that fair and impartial trial guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 6, the State of Oklahoma, Okl.St.Ann.Const. art. 2, § 20, and its laws * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State“[IJmpeaching questions should not be propounded to a witness unless they are based upon facts that the interrogator intends to present in refutation of adverse answering of questions propounded; such line of questioning should be done in good faith, and not for the pur pose of prejudicing and arousing suspicion of the jury against the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Peterson
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.