Danell Blevins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[w]e do not consider “whether or not the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but [instead] whether or not the evidence could reasonably support such a finding by the factfinder.” Hill v. State, 2016 WY 27, ¶ 13 , 371 P.3d 663 , 668 (Wyo. 2016). “We will not reweigh the evidence nor will we re-examine the credibility of the witnesses.” Hill, 2016 WY 27, ¶ 12 , 371 P.3d at 568 . We review the sufficiency of the evidence “from this perspective because we defer to the jury as the fact-finder and assume they believed only the evidence adverse to the defendant since they found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Oldman [v. State], 2016 WY 121, ¶ 5 , 369 P.3d [964,] 966 [(Wyo. 2015)].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thompson v. State · Sam v. State

2. “"Where legislative intent is discernible a court should give effect to the 'most likely, most reasonable, interpretation of the statute, given its design and purpose.' " Adekale [ v. State ], [ 2015 WY 30 ,] ¶ 12, 344 P.3d [761,] 765 [ (Wyo. 2015) ] (quoting Rodriguez v. Casey , 2002 WY 111 , ¶ 20, 50 P.3d 323 , 329 (Wyo. 2002) ). In light of this objective, we have said: We therefore construe each statutory provision in pari materia , giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence according to their arrangement and connection. To ascertain the meaning of a given law, we also consider all statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose and strive to interpret them harmoniously. ... When the words used convey a specific and obvious meaning, we need not go farther and engage in statutory construction. Nicodemus v. Lampert , 2014 WY 135 , ¶ 13, 336 P.3d 671 , 674 (Wyo. 2014) citing Estate of Dahlke ex rel. Jubie v. Dahlke , 2014 WY 29 , ¶¶ 36-37, 319 P.3d 116 , 125-26 (Wyo. 2014). Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Laramie Co. Sch. Dist. No. One, 2016 WY 113 , ¶ 10, 384 P.3d 679 , 683-84 (Wyo. 2016).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Britain v. Britain (In re Estate of Britain)

3. “The purpose of jury instructions is to "provide the jury with a foundational legal understanding to enable a reasoned application of the facts to the law." Walker [ v. State , 2013 WY 58 ,] ¶ 31, 302 P.3d [182,] 191 [ (Wyo. 2013) ( Walker II ).] In order to support a reliable verdict, it is crucial that the trial court correctly state the law and adequately cover the relevant issues. Ultimately, the test of adequate jury instructions is "whether they leave no doubt as to the circumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed." Walker II , ¶ 31, 302 P.3d at 191 .”

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