72 Okla. Crim. 339 - Blumhoff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Evidence corroborative of an accomplice need not directly connect the defendant with the commission of the crime; it is sufficient if it tends to can-nect him with its commission. “Evidence corroborating an accomplice and tending- to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime need not be direct, but may be circumstantial only. : “Where there is evidence in corroboration of an accomplice tending to connect a'defendant with the commission of the crime charged, the sufficiency of such corroborating evidence is for thé jury. “Where the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate an accomplice is challenged, this court will take the strongest view of the corroborating testimony that such testimony will warrant, and, if it can say that there is corroborating evidence tending to connect the deféndant with the commission of the offense, it will uphold the verdict.” .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Calhoun v. State · 90 Okla. Crim. 283 - Taylor v. State

2. ““ ‘The rule, simply stated, is that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect defendant with the commission of the offense; that it is not necessary that such testimony, standing alone, should be sufficient to convict defendant; and that incriminating circumstances shown by the evidence are sufficient, if they tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. * * * “ 'It is not essential that the corroborating evidence shall cover every material point testified -to by accomplice or be sufficient alone to warrant a verdict of guilty. If the accomplice is corroborated as to one material fact or facts by independent evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime, the jury may from that infer that' he speaks the truth as to all. Such corroborating evidence, however, must show more than the mere commission of the offense or circumstances thereof.’ Davenport v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 253 , 202 P. 18 ; Henson v. State, [ 69 Okl.Cr. 273 ] 101 P.2d 1060 ; Bliss v. State, 47 Okl.Cr. 225 , 287 P. 778 ; Hathcoat v. State, [ 71 Okl.Cr. 5 ] 107 P.2d 825 .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sizemore v. State · Hardesty v. State

3. ““Evidence corroborative of an accomplice need not directly connect the accused with the commission of the crime. It is sufficient, although circumstantial, if such evidence tends to connect him with its commission. “The testimony of an accomplice to sustain a conviction need not be corroborated in every particular in detail. The rule is that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated by such other evidence of material parts of his testimony as will tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. “Where the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate an accomplice is challenged, this court will take the strongest view of the corroborating testimony that such testimony will warrant, and, if it can say that there is corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, it will uphold the verdict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carney v. State · Sanders v. State