State v. Engesser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 51 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the character of the witness for truthfulness and honesty and the availability of evidence on that question; (2) whether the testimony was given voluntarily, under oath, subject to cross-examination and a penalty for perjury; (3) the relationship of the witness to the parties and any motivation the witness had for making the statement; (4) the extent to which the witness’s statement reflects personal knowledge; (5) whether the witness ever recanted the statement; (6) the existence of corroborating evidence; and (7) the reasons for the unavailability of the witness.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boyles v. Weber · State v. Cottier

2. ““In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal case, the issue before this Court is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In making that determination, we “accept the evidence and the most favorable inferences fairly drawn therefrom, which will support the verdict.” Moreover, “the jury is ... the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.” Therefore, this Court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses, or weigh the evidence. “No guilty verdict will be set aside if the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, sustains a reasonable theory of guilt.””

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

3. “1. the declarant is unavailable; 2. the statement has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the first four exceptions in Rule 804(b); 3. the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; 4. the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent reasonably can procure; 5. the statement serves the interests of justice and the purposes of the rules of evidence; 6. the proponent of the evidence to be offered must have given advance notice to the other side.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boyles v. Weber