State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court does not retry cases de novo. Instead, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. In a similar theft by deception case, we set forth our standard of review. ... Where conflicting evidence is present, as in this case, and the credibility of witnesses is in issue, then it is a question of fact for the jury. The jury is physically present at the trial and, therefore, in the best position to judge the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses. This standard of review is vitally important in a theft by deception case, because rarely, if ever, will a defendant get on the stand and announce that he or she had the specific intent to defraud. “The proof of fraudulent intent need not be direct; it may be inferred from expressly proven acts of the accused and surrounding circumstances.” People ex rel. BJT, 2005 SD 123, ¶ 10 , 707 N.W.2d 489, 492 (quoting State v. Teutsch, 80 S.D. 462, 466 , 126 N.W.2d 112, 115 (1964)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Kessler