Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(3) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: (A) All proceedings related to the mental illness or deficiency of the defendant; (B) Proceedings on another charge; (C) The time between the dismissal and the refiling of the same charge; and (D) Delay occasioned by defendant’s change of counsel or application therefor. (4) Continuances exceeding 180 days from the date of arraignment may be granted by the trial court as follows: (A) On motion of defendant supported by affidavit; or (B) On motion of the attorney for the state or the court if: (i)' The defendant expressly consents; (ii) The state’s evidence is unavailable and the prosecution has exercised due diligence; or (iii) Required in the due administration of justice and the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced; and (C)If a continuance is proposed by the state or the court, the defendant shall be notified. If the defendant objects, the defendant must show in writing how the delay may prejudice the defense..”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitney v. State · Osban v. State

2. “must show that the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a substantial right.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burton v. State · Strange v. State

3. “You are permitted but not required to infer from the defendant's possession of the property of another that the defendant is guilty of theft only if in your judgment such an inference is warranted by the evidence as a whole. I is your exclusive province to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence warrant the inference to be drawn by you. The possession of the property by the defendant does not shift the burden of proof which is always on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the offense with which defendant is charged. The defendant's possession of property belonging to another may be satisfactorily explained in the evidence independently of any testimony of the defendant personally. If [the] defendant does take the witness stand to explain his [or her] possession of the property, the weight to be attached to his [or her] explanation is exclusively for you to determine. Even if defendant's possession of the property is unexplained, you cannot find [the defendant] guilty, if after consideration of all the evidence in the case, you have a reasonable doubt as to his [or her] guilt. If under the evidence, defendant's possession of the property of another is consistent with his [or her} innocence, then the jury should acquit the defendant unless [the state proves his or her guili] beyond a reasonable doubt by other evidence in the case.”

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