Fontenot v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[We] reaffirm this Court's prior adoption of the standard which requires only that a confession be supported by "substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish ...[its] trustworthiness .. ." [6]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. State · Pickens v. State

2. ““However, each material element does not have to be corroborated by facts independent of the confession. [Citation omitted.] In fact, inconsistencies between the facts proven and the facts related in the confession may exist, so long as the inconsistencies do not overwhelm the similarities.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pickens v. State · 2002 OK CR 40 - McElmurry v. State

3. “The Oklahoma Legislature enacted the "life without the possibility of parole" option in November of 1987. See 21 O.S.Supp. 1987, Secs. 701.9 and 701.10. Although Fontenot committed the offenses at issue prior to this date, his second trial and conviction did not occur until June of 1988 — well after the statute's enactment. Under these circumstances, this Court's recent opinions in Salazar v. State, 852 P.2d 729 (Okl.Cr. 1993) and Hain v. State, 852 P.2d 744 (Okl.Cr. 1993), require that Fontenot's case be remanded for a new sentencing proceeding providing him with the life without parole punishment option. We note that Fontenot did not request an instruction on life without parole. As we stated in Salazar , however, the error resulting from instructions which fail to provide the proper range of punishment is fundamental and cannot be waived. The dissent argues that the Legislature has effectively precluded this Court from applying the Hain and Salazar holdings to Fontenot's case. Shortly after those opinions were handed down, the Legislature amended the statute setting forth the procedures to be followed when this Court remands a capital case for resentencing. Upon remand, the sentencer may now impose "any sentence authorized by law at the time of the commission of the crime...." 21 O.S.Supp. 1993, Sec. 701.10a (emphasis added). The dissent claims this amendment, which was expressly made retroactive, prohibits this Court from granting relief under Salazar and Hain to all defe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Cheatham v. State