Sharp v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 1978
17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hinshaw v. State · Hauk v. State · Burrows v. State · Wade v. State · State v. White
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . If, after considering all the evidence in the case, the jury entertains a reasonable doubt as to any essential fact constituting an element of the offense, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal whether such doubt arises from the evidence or the lack of evidence. In determining whether such a doubt arises from the evidence, the jury has a right to consider the whole evidence, and the defendant has a right to have the entire evidence so considered. The court cannot correctly exclude from the consideration of the jury, on such questions, the evidence adduced in support of subsidiary facts. If, after considering the entire evidence, the jury entertains a reasonable doubt as to the fact essential to constitute the offense, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of such doubt, even though it arises from the consideration of evidence adduced in support of a subsidiary fact. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. WHITE, JR. v. State“It may be shown as a defense that the woman against whom the offense is alleged to have been committed is the wife of the person who is charged with committing the rape, but it is not necessary to negative this fact in the indictment. Curtis v. State (1909), 89 Ark. 394 , 117 S.W. 521 ; State v. Morrison (1912), 46 Mont. 84 , 125 P. 649 ; State v. Williamson (1900), 22 Utah 248 , 62 P. 1022 , 83 Am.St. 780; State v. White (1890), 44 Kan. 514 , 25 P. 33 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bell““. . . Under the instruction held to be erroneous, the jury might well have excluded it (the question in issue) from consideration in so far as it had any bearing on the question of reasonable doubt. In view of the evidence, it cannot be said that appellant was so clearly guilty as to render the instructions harmless.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. WHITE, JR. v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.