123 So. 3d 360 - State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “12iThe credibility of a witness is a matter of weight of the evidence, not sufficiency, and determination of the credibility is left to the finder of fact’s sound discretion and will not be re-weighed on appeal. State v. F.B.A., 07-1526 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/28/08), 983 So.2d 1006 , writ denied, 08-1464 (La.3/27/09), 5 So.3d 138 . [[Image here]] The appellate court’s authority to review questions of fact in a criminal case is limited to the sufficiency of the evidence evaluation under Jackson v. Virgi nia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The appellate court’s function is not to assess credibility or reweigh the evidence. State v. Helou, 02-2302 (La.10/23/03), 857 So.2d 1024 . “In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness’s testimony, if believed by the fact finder, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion.” State v. Dorsey, 10-216, p. 44-45 (La.9/7/11), 74 So.3d 603, 634 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1859 , 182 L.Ed.2d 658 (2012). [[Image here]] “[Ijrrational decisions to convict will be overturned, rational decisions to convict will be upheld, and the actual fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305, 1310 (La.1988) (emphasis in original). See also State v. Perry, 08-1304 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/09) , 9 So.3d 342 , writ denied, 09-1955 (La.6/25/10), 38 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 So. 3d 911 - State ex rel. T.H.