115 So. 3d 564 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 588 So.2d 757 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991). However, the reviewing court may not disregard this duty simply because the record contains evidence that tends to support each fact necessary to constitute the crime. State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La.1988). The reviewing court must consider the record as a whole. If rational triers of fact could disagree as to the interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier’s view of all the evidence most favorable to the prosecution must be adopted. The fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law. Id. at 1310 . “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” State v. Smith, 600 So.2d 1319, 1324 (La.1992). When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, such evidence must consist of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 ”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Daniels · 149 So. 3d 1239 - State v. Jasper

2. “The State or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that: [[Image here]] (2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of- his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be ■ sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render -an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 So. 3d 251 - State v. Jones

3. “To demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying a continuance, a showing of specific prejudice is generally required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Andrews (In re Andrews)