State v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When considering on appeal the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction of crime, the question before this court is not whether the evidence is incompatibile with any reasonable hypothesis except guilt. That was a question for the jury and the trial court, and the function of this court is limited to ascertaining whether there was basis in the evidence for a reasonable inference of guilt.” (Syl. 1.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gregory · State v. Fouts

2. ““In the verdict of guilty for uttering inheres the belief of the jury that the check was a forgery, and that appellant knew it to be a forgery. The conviction is based on direct and circumstantial evidence. . . . [C]onceding the jury did not believe appellant signed this check, and conceding further that the question of whether he knew the check was a forgery depended entirely on circumstantial evidence, he is not entitled to a reversal at the hands of this court. The testimony fairly tended to show the guilt of appellant. Now, was there a basis in the evidence for a reasonable inference of guilt? If so, we must affirm the judgment. (State v. Hunter, 50 Kan. 302 , 32 Pac. 37 ; State v. Brizendine, supra [ 114 Kan. 699 , 220 Pac. 174 ].) In the Brizendine case it was held: “‘When considering on appeal the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction of crime, the question before this court is not whether the evidence is incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis except guilt. That was a question for the jury and the trial court, and the function of this court is limited to ascertaining whether there was basis in the evidence for a reasonable inference of guilt.’ (Syl. f 1.) “. . . The jury by its verdict, among other things, found he was in possession of a forged check. Such possession, without a reasonable explanation of how he acquired it, warrranted an inference he himself had forged it or was a guilty accessory to the forgery. The verdict indicates appella”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gregory · State v. Ledbetter

3. ““. . . By statute in this state, although both forgery of a check and uttering of a check are classified as forgery in the second degree, yet each constitutes a separate and distinct offense. (G. S. 1935, 21-608, 21-609.) Assuming, under the facts in this particular case, the verdict was inconsistent, does that fact require a reversal of the conviction for uttering? Lawyers and courts have frequently observed conduct of juries which was completely devoid of logic. The stories of these varied experiences and observations, reduced to writing, would indeed provide most interesting reading. Supposing, however, in the instant case, the jury was derelict in its duty and should also have found appellant guilty of forgery, would that fact justify this court in following the example of the jury and thus clear appellant on all counts? This court has held otherwise in cases where two parts of a verdict were utterly irreconcilable. (State v. Brizendine, 114 Kan. 699 , 200 Pac. 174 ; State v. Brundige, 114 Kan. 849 , 200 Pac. 1039 ; State v. Hund, 115 Kan. 475 , 222 Pac. 766 ; State v. Stewart, 120 Kan. 516 , 243 Pac. 1057 ; State v. Jackson, 121 Kan. 711 , 249 Pac. 688 ; State v. Axley, 121 Kan. 881 , 250 Pac. 284 .) The conviction cannot be reversed on the ground of inconsistency.” (p. 243.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ogden · 17 Kan. App. 2d 59 - State v. Meyer