153 So. 3d 1061 - State v. Lively’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. “However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder’s discretion and its role in determining , the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.” State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d. 1305, 1310 (La.1988). In [ ^determining the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a - conviction, an appellate court must preserve “‘the factfinder’s role as weigher ,of the evidence’ by reviewing ‘all of the evidence ... in the light most favorable to the prosecution.’” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. [120], [134], 130 S.Ct. 665, 674 , 175 L.Ed.2d 582 [(2010)] (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). When so viewed by an appellate court, the relevant question is whether, on the evidence presented at trial, “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea sonable doubt,” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789 . Applied in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, ... this fundamental principle of review means that when a jury “reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant!;], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.” State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 (La.1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 So. 3d 857 - State v. Williams