11 Ariz. App. 205 - State v. Ruiz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““During the trial, defendant did not take the stand or present any evidence. Defense counsel moved for a directed verdict of acquittal as to the felony charge and asked that the case be submitted to the jury on the sole issue of joyriding. This motion was denied on the grounds that the lack of explanation of defendant’s possession of the recently stolen automobile Avarranted submission to the jury (together with the evidence). “The almost universal rule is that if the defendant is in possession of recently stolen property, an inference of fact, sometimes called a rebuttable presumption of fact, arises that he has stolen the property. This presumption is covered by statute in some states and does not violate the defendant’s protection from self-incrimination. See, Annot., 51 A.L.R. 1139 , 1167; Annot., 162 A.L.R. 495 , 531; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 12th ed. § 135. “The courts of Arizona have consistently held that the possession of recently stolen goods is a circumstance from which the jury may infer the guilt of defendant. It is true that this circumstance standing alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Pederson, 102 Ariz. 60 , 424 P.2d 810 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 867 , 88 S.Ct. 138 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 142 ; State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399 , 420 P.2d 270 (1966). In State v. Wood, 7 Ariz. App. 22 , 435 P.2d 857 (1967), we held that this instruction is one of the well-recognized exceptions to the rule that tbe court will not single out evidence and instruct t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Branch