19 So. 3d 598 - State v. Strother’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is |2whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 [rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890 , 100 S.Ct. 195 , 62 L.Ed.2d 126 ] (1979); State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983); State v. Duncan, 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982); State v. Moody, 393 So.2d 1212 (La.1981). The role of the factfinder is to weigh the respective credibility of each witness. Therefore, the appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the factfinder beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review. See State ex rel. Graffagnino, 436 So.2d 559 , citing State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983). State v. Miller, 98-1873, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 746 So.2d 118, 120 , writ denied, 99-3259 (La.5/5/00), 761 So.2d 541 . Additionally, in State v. Ortiz, 96-1609, p. 12 (La.10/21/97), 701 So.2d 922, 930 , cert. denied, 524 U.S. 943 , 118 S.Ct. 2352 , 141 L.Ed.2d 722 (1998), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La.R.S. 15:438 requires that “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reason”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 So. 3d 546 - State v. Hunter

2. “[w]hile the diaper-changing incident occurred within the time frame of when the doctors theorized the injury occurred, Defendant's account of what happened did not indicate an injury to the baby's arm occurred at that time,”

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

3. “the jury could have found this [statement about the diaper change] inconsistent with the degree of bruising and injury, including a fractured arm, discovered at the hospital.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Cohen