State v. Harris’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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard for reviewing a post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal made pursuant to Crim.R. 29(C) is identical to the standard for reviewing a motion for an acquittal made during a trial pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A). See State v. Metcalf, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C–950190, 1996 WL 411620 , (July 24, 1996); see also State v. Misch, 101 Ohio App.3d 640, 650 , 656 N.E.2d Hocking App. No. 18CA3 7 381 (6th Dist. 1995). On review of a Crim.R. 29(C) post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state to determine if reasonable minds could differ as to whether each material element of the crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Callins, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C–930428, 1994 WL 376752 , (July 20, 1994), citing State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), syllabus; but see State v. Wright, 1st Dist. Hamilton. No. C- 080437, 2009-Ohio-5474 , 2009 WL 3323337 , ¶ 26 (applying the standard used to review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim).”

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

2. “[a] defendant does not forfeit issues that he has raised with specificity in a timely Crim.R. 29(C) motion.”

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