Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Substantial evidence is information of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. La'Darrian McCray v. State of Mississippi · Samuel Terrail Young, Jr. v. State of Mississippi

2. “[A] de novo standard of review [applies] to a trial court’s denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict [ (JNOV) ]. A motion for [a JNOV] is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and this Court will affirm the denial of a motion for [a] JNOV if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. “Substantial evidence” is information of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions. The evidence is viewed in. the light most favorable to the verdict. A motion for a new trial falls within a lower standard of review than does that of a [JNOV] or a directed verdict. A motion for a new trial simply challenges the weight of the evidence. The [supreme [c]ourt will reverse the lower court’s denial of a motion for a new trial only if, by doing so, the court abused its discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 So. 3d 1175 - Donald Allen Caves v. State of Mississippi

3. “One of the essential elements of the crime of burglary is the intent to commit a specific crime. Jury Instruction S-l fails to instruct the jury as to what crime Daniels intended to commit, and thus fails to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime of burglary. The failure to instruct the jury on some specific crime in the second element of burglary would have allowed each of the jurors to arbitrarily select some crime of which there was no proof, and use that nonexistent offense to convict Daniels of burglary. The jury instructions as a whole fail to cure this fatal defect; therefore the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment to Instruction S-l that deleted the phrase “grand larceny.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 So. 3d 407 - Blythe v. State