67 Okla. Crim. 404 - Morris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2007
8 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 35 Okla. Crim. 329 - Halbert 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We regard the circumstances established against the defendant amply sufficient to sustain, the verdict. Where a conviction rests upon circumstantial evidence, and circumstances are proven from which the reasonable and logical inference of guilt clearly arises, and which exclude any reason-, able hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, although the evidence is conflicting this court will not disturb the verdict for insufficiency of the evidence. Halbert v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 329 , 250 P. 436 . “A question merely of fact is presented ’ by the evidence, dependent wholly upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their evidence. There could be no case suggested presenting a matter more proper for the decision of a jury. The jurors are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses who testified before them; and they are not bound to, nor can they be compelled to, credit the testimony of any witness, whether, contradicted or not. “In the opinion of this court, there was sufficient, evidence to warrant the jury in returning a-verdict of guilty, and, the jury being the tribunal upon which by our Constitution and laws is especially imposed the duty of weigh-, ing the testimony, and having so weighed the testimony and found against the defendant, it is not the province of this court to disturb their verdict.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pruitt v. State · Hancock v. State“[Thhe jury being the tribunal upon which by our Constitution and laws is especially imposed the duty of weighing the testimony, and having so weighed the testimony and found against the defendant, it is not the province of this court to disturb their verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hancock v. State
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.