170 Ind. App. 607 - Duling v. State’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. ““When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not the duty of this court to weigh the evidence or to determine the credibility of witnesses. This court looks to the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom most supportive of the verdict, to determine if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is subject to a similar review which specifically requires that we view the evidence, not for the purpose of determining whether or not it is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but with the same general view of deciding whether an inference may be reasonably drawn therefrom which tends to support the finding of the trial court. Atkins v. State (1974), 159 Ind.App. 387 , 307 N.E.2d 73 ; McAfee v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 687 , 291 N.E.2d 554 ; Glover v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 532 , 300 N.E. 2d 902 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cloman v. State

2. ““In order to be a conspiracy there must be an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged. It is sufficient if the minds of the parties meet understandingly to bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to do the acts and commit the offense, though the agreement is not manifest by any formal words. Concurrence of sentiment and co-operative conduct in the unlawful and criminal enterprise are the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy. There must be an agreement and there must be evidence to prove the agreement directly, or such a state of facts that an agreement may be legally inferred. Conspiracies cannot be established by a mere suspicion. Evidence of mere relationship of association between the parties does not show a conspiracy.” (Citation omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. State

3. “When the court undertakes to state all the facts to be proved in one instruction, the jury is led to believe that to find the defendant guilty, no other evidence need be considered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. State