80 Okla. Crim. 28 - Bock v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Oklahoma, the possession of intoxicating liquor for his own personal use is not unlawful regardless of the quantity a person has in his possession. Where a person has in excess of one quart in his possession under the statute such possession is prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, 37 O. S. 1941 § 82, but this is not conclusive, and where the defendant contends that he had the intoxicating liquor for his own personal use, such contention raises an issue for the determination of the jury under proper instructions. _ If they should determine that the defendant had it for his own personal use, it is their duty to return a verdict of not guilty. If they should determine that he had it for the purpose of sale, conveyance, or other unlawful purpose, their verdict should be that of guilt.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 83 Okla. Crim. 370 - Edwards v. State · 92 Okla. Crim. 20 - Moody v. State

2. “"Where this statute is violated by the prosecutor commenting on the failure of the defendant to testify, it is held that it is the mandatory duty of the trial court to order a new trial. Dorsett v. State, 16 Okl.Cr. 65 , 180 P. 557 ; Schrader v. State, 40 Okl.Cr. 261 , 268 P. 325 ; Cokely v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 431 , 231 P. 330 ; Rice v. State, 66 Okl. Cr. 434, 92 P.2d 857 ; Shepherd v. State [ 77 Okl.Cr. 131 ], 139 P.2d 605 . "In the case of Weinberger v. State, 8 Okl.Cr. 441 , 128 P. 160, 161 , it is said: `The statute is in accordance with the constitutional guaranty that "no person shall be compelled to give evidence which will tend to incriminate him, except as in this Constitution specifically provided." The clear intent of the statute is that the jury in determining their verdict shall entirely exclude from their consideration the fact that the defendant did not elect to testify, and any reference by the prosecuting attorney in his address to the jury to the fact that the defendant did not testify constitutes misconduct, and, under the terms of the statute, the trial court has no discretion, but must grant a new trial. Every person accused of crime is entitled to a fair trial under the forms of law before he may be convicted.' "In Nowlin v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 27 , 115 P. 625 , 121 P. 791, 792 , it is said: `It matters not what we may think of the policy of this statute. It is mandatory, and therefore we have no discretion in the matter, but it is our plain duty to enforce ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duckworth v. State · 85 Okla. Crim. 125 - Edwards v. State

3. ““The intent with which liquors are possessed is an essential ingredient of the crime. 37 O.S. 1941 § 82, makes tlie possession in excess of one quart of whisky prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, but is not conclusive, and where defendant contends that he had intoxicating liquor for his own personal use, such contention raises an issue for the determination of the jury under proper instructions. “Where wife of defendant testified that defendant had possession of certain whisky in their home for his own personal use, it was error for the trial court to refuse the following requested instruction, where there was no other instruction on defendant’s theory of the case: “ 'The jury are instructed that the defendant admits having possession of the liquor in controversy in this action, but contends, and has offered evidence tending to show, that his possession of such liquor was intended for his own personal use and without any intention of violating any of the provisions of the prohibitory liquor laws of the State of Oklahoma; and, in this connection, you are instructed that possession of any amount of intoxicating liquor, intended for his own personal use, is not a violation of the law, and unless you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant’s possession of the liquor shown from the evidence to have been possessed by defendant was for an unlawful purpose, as elsewhere in these instructions ■ defined, then it isi your duty to return a verdict of n”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Worley v. State · 92 Okla. Crim. 20 - Moody v. State