State v. Brooker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against conviction.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Nayar, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2007) · State v. Vanhoose, 07ca765 (3-5-2008)

2. “"Although a court of appeals may determine that a judgment of a trial court is sustained by sufficient evidence, that court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence." State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 . When an appellate court considers a claim that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court must dutifully examine the entire record, *Page 10 weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses. The reviewing court must bear in mind, however, that credibility generally is an issue for the trier of fact to resolve. See State v. Issa (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 49 , 67 , 752 N.E.2d 904 ; State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 80 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 ; State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 , paragraph one of the syllabus. Once the reviewing court finishes its examination, the court may reverse the judgment of conviction only if it appears that the fact finder, in resolving conflicts in evidence, "clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered." Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 . If the prosecution presented substantial evidence upon which the trier of fact reasonably could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the essential elements of the offense had been established, the judgment of conviction is”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Nayar, Unpublished Decision (11-7-2007) · State v. Vanhoose, 07ca765 (3-5-2008)

3. “"Although a court of appeals may determine that a judgment of a trial court is sustained by sufficient evidence, that court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence." State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 678 N.E.2d 541 . When an appellate court considers a claim that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court must dutifully examine the entire record, weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses. The reviewing court must bear in mind, however, that credibility generally is an issue for the trier of fact to resolve. See State v. Issa (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 49 , 67 , 752 N.E.2d 904 ; State v. Thomas (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 79 , 80 , 434 N.E.2d 1356 ; State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 , paragraph one of the syllabus. Once the reviewing court *Page 14 finishes its examination, the court may reverse the judgment of conviction only if it appears that the fact finder, in resolving conflicts in evidence, `"clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered."' Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d at 387 , quoting State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 . If the prosecution presented substantial evidence upon which the trier of fact reasonably could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the essential elements of the offense had been established, the judgment of conviction ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Murphy, 07ca2953 (4-8-2008)