78 Okla. Crim. 375 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 1972
11 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 11 Okla. Crim. 237 - State v. Rule · 69 Okla. Crim. 397 - Spivey v. State · 78 Okla. Crim. 267 - Byers v. State · 75 Okla. Crim. 251 - Herren v. State · 69 Okla. Crim. 244 - Jones 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The general rule of law is that a person who steals property is not an accomplice of the one who receives the property, knowing it to be stolen. They are independent crimes. “ ‘The well-recognized exception to this general rule is that if the one who steals and the one who receives the property conspire together, or enter into a prearranged plan for one to steal the property and deliver the same to the other, the one who receives it is the accomplice of the one who commits the theft, and vice versa. * * * “ ‘The statute providing that no person shall be convicted of a crime on the testimony of an accomplice, without corroboration, was adopted for the purpose of protecting an accused.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Certain evidence has been introduced tending to show that the defendant has heretofore been convicted of other and distinct offenses from that charged in the information. This evidence was not admitted as tending to prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant of the specific offense charged in the information in this case, but should you find from the evidence that such other convictions have been had, you may, in your discretion, consider the same, as such facts may or may not, in your judgment, affect the weight and credit which you will give to the testimony of the defendant, but for no other purpose. A person may not be convicted of the commission of one offense by any proof tending to show that he may or may not have committed another offense."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Samples 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.