72 Okla. Crim. 1 - Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is not error alone that reverses judgments of conviction of- crime in this state, but error plus injury, and the burden is upon the plaintiff in error to establish to this court the fact that he was prejudiced in his substantial rights by the commission of error.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 85 Okla. Crim. 288 - Bradley v. State · Jiminez v. State

2. ““The rule obtains in this jurisdiction that a defendant taking the Avitness stand and testifying in his own behalf, may be cross-examined the same as any other witness. He, like any other witness, may be asked questions pertaining to the matter at issue or that would go to his credibility as a witness. His cross-examination is not confined to a mere categorical review of the matters stated in the direct examination. He may be asked questions irrelevant and collateral to the issue for the purpose of testing his memory, affecting his credibility and the weight of his testimony. In Castleberry v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 504 , 139 P. 132 , it is said: ‘The doctrine that a witness may be cross-examined as to matters going to credibility may well be regarded as an exception to the rule that cross-examination is to be con-’ fined to matters touched on in the examination in chief, and the limits within which either party may cross-examine upon matters not strictly relevant, but AVhich affect the credibility of the witness, is largely within the discretion of the trial court, but the privilege of degrading a witness by proof of disreputable conduct, not connected with the facts on trial, is one so liable to abuse that it should be closely guarded and allowed only upon the exercise of sound judicial discretion, and then only to affect the credibility of the witness.’ ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Okla. Crim. 313 - Lowrey v. State · 91 Okla. Crim. 107 - Lane v. State

3. ““On a trial for murder where defendant has laid a proper foundation by evidence tending to show that, in committing the homicide he acted in self-defense, he may introduce evidence of the turbulent and dangerous character or reputation of deceased. “On a trial for murder where the defense is justifiable homicide in self-defense, and there is evidence to support the same, evidence of specific acts of violence on the part of deceased against persons other than defendant, being known to defendant prior to the homicide, is admissible for the purpose of showing the disposition of deceased to become violent without provocation, and as tending to show Ms condition of mind and violent temper on such occasions and his disposition to use deadly weapons.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 91 Okla. Crim. 217 - Roberson v. State