Pennington v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Knox v. State (1987), Shaw v. State (1987)
36 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 Vanderbilt v. State · Simpkins v. State · Bradley v. State · Bouchillon v. State · Seefurth 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Before said charge is read to the jury, the defendant or his counsel shall have a reasonable time to examine the same and he shall present his objections thereto in writing, distinctly specifying each ground of objection_” (emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. State · Wallace v. State“This article is mandatory and there must be strict compliance with its provisions to warrant review [by the appellate court], (citations omitted). The real purpose of this enactment is to enable the trial judge to know in what respect the defendant regards the charge as defective and to afford him an opportunity to correct it before reading the charge to the jury, (citations omitted). This article serves a statutory purpose in preventing the trial judge from being “sand-bagged” and in preventing unnecessary reversals, (citations omitted). It is a statute which the courts can neither ignore nor emasculate, (citation omitted). Thus[,] as a predicate for complaint to a jury charge on appeal[,] the accused is required to distinctly specify each ground of objection, (citation omitted). To constitute a valid objection to jury instructions, the objection must be specific and clear enough to apprise the trial court of the nature of the objection, (citations omitted). If the objection is not specific enough, nothing is presented for review, (citations omitted). It is clear then that a general objection which does not distinctly specify the claimed error in the charge is not sufficient to preserve error.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An examination of the objections made by the appellant does not show that he distinctly specified to the trial judge that he was objecting to the submission of voluntary manslaughter ‘for the reason that such lessor included offense was not raised by the evidence....’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McKee 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.