State v. Addai’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the early morning hours of Sunday, August 19, 2007, a group of people gathered at an apartment in south Fargo, including Addai; Addai’s friend, Semer-eab Tesafaye; David Detonáis (“Deto-náis”); and Eric Detonáis, Delonais’s cousin. There was tension at the gathering between Tesafaye and Eric Detonáis. When Detonáis and Eric Detonáis left the apartment, Addai and Tesafaye followed and a fight broke out behind the apartment building. Addai, Tesafaye, and Detonáis were involved in the altercation and had knives. At some point during the altercation, Detonáis stabbed Tesafaye in the head, and other individuals from the party later found him lying behind the apartment building in a pool of blood. There was also evidence Tesafaye and Addai may have stabbed Detonáis during the fight. Detonáis and Eric Detonáis attempted to run away from the scene of the fight, but they became separated and witnesses saw Addai following Detonáis. Two newspaper carriers, Roslynn Bol-grean and Mary Albertson, were delivering newspapers approximately one block away from the apartment building at the time of the altercation. They heard footsteps and a commotion and saw two men running down the street toward them. They testified one of the men was black, wearing a light blue shirt with white numbers on the shirt and a white scarf on his head, and he was chasing the other man, who had a lighter complexion. The man being chased was later identified as Detonáis, and Albertson and Bolgrean identified Adda”

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

2. “In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to warrant the conviction. A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses. A verdict based on circumstantial evidence carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts. A conviction may be justified on circumstantial evidence alone if the circumstantial evidence has such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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

3. “(i) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection: specify its time, place and manner; and prescribe other just terms and conditions; (ii) grant a continuance; (iii) prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; (iv) relieve the requesting party from making a disclosure required by this rule; or (v) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances.”

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