Blake v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Kutzner v. State (1999), Paredes v. State (2004)
77 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 Washington v. Texas · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Alexander v. United States · Almanza v. State · McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a person is an accomplice if he or she could be prosecuted for the same offense as the defendant, or a lesser included offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State · Lane v. State“An accomplice participates before, during or after the commission of the crime ... We have ... repeatedly stated that a person is an accomplice if he or she could be prosecuted for the same offense as the defendant, or a lesser included offense. • By this we mean that a person is an accomplice if there is sufficient evidence connecting them to the criminal offense as a blameworthy participant. ‘The test is whether of not there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a charge against’ the witness alleged to be an accomplice ... Whether the person is actually charged and prosecuted for their participation is irrelevant to the determination of accomplice status — what matters is the evidence in the record. Finally, when an accomplice witness testifies it is the jury’s task to determine whether the testimony has been sufficiently corroborated. Some witnesses are accomplices as a matter of law. If “there exists no doubt or the evidence clearly shows that a witness is an accomplice witness as a matter of law, [then] ‘the court is under a duty to instruct the jury.’ ” Others are accomplices as a matter of fact. If the evidence presented by the parties is conflicting, and it is not clear whether the witness is an accomplice, the jury must initially determine whether the witness is an accomplice as a matter of fact. If the evidence is conflicting, it is proper to leave the question of whether an inculpatory witness is an accomplice witness as a mat ter of fact to the jury unde”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.