13 So. 3d 705 - State v. Mosley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “|7The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence, as enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), requires that a conviction be based on proof sufficient for any rational trier-of-fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (Citations omitted.) Additionally, where circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove.” (Citations omitted.) This statutory test works with the Jackson constitutional sufficiency test to evaluate whether all evidence, direct and circumstantial, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a rational jury. (Citations omitted.) Circumstantial evidence involves, in addition to the assertion of witnesses as to what they have observed, a process of reasoning, or inference by which a conclusion is drawn. (Citations omitted.) The trier of fact must decide what reasonable inferences may be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, the manner in which competing inferences should be resolved, reconciled or compromised, and the weight and effect to be given to each permissible inference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 So. 3d 725 - State v. Blazio

2. “A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case. La.C.E. art. 611. Article 404 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence generally disallows the admission of evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character for the purpose of proving he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. However, as a limited exception to the general rule, Article 404(A)(1) allows admission of evidence of a pertinent trait of a defendant’s character — such as a moral quality — offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the character evidence. Under La.C.E. art. 405(A), a character witness may be cross-examined regarding relevant specific instances of conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 142 So. 3d 314 - State v. Richardson