Martin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence ..., we examine and accept as true the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the defendant. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury; rather, we determine whether a jury could have reasonably concluded each of the elements of the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard applies whether the supporting evidence is direct or cireumstantial.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tombroek v. State · Dawes v. State

2. “The decision [whether to grant a mistrial] is necessarily a discretionary one because a trial court is in a better position than a reviewing court to assess the potential for prejudicial impact. [Ramirez v. State, 739 P.2d 1214, 1219 (Wyo.1987).] A trial court abuses its discretion when it could not have reasonably concluded as it did. Thomas [v. State, 2006 WY 34 ], ¶ 10, 131 P.3d [348], 352 [ (Wyo.2006) ]. “Reasonably” means sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances. Id. Absent a clear abuse of discretion causing prejudice to the defendant, a decision to deny a motion for mistrial will not be reversed. Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, ¶ 75 , 43 P.3d 551, 575 (Wyo.2002).”

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

3. “(a) An offender, parolee or an inmate is deemed guilty of escape from official detention ... if, without proper authorization, he: (i) Fails to remain within the extended limits of his confinement or to return within the time prescribed to an adult community correctional facility to which he was assigned or transferred; or (ii) Being a participant in a program established under the provisions of this act he leaves his place of employment or fails or neglects to return to the adult community correctional facility within the time prescribed or when specifically ordered to do so.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 315 F. App'x 677 - United States v. Pappan