State v. Hutton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"However, such inference is not conclusive, but is rebuttable. It may be overcome or rebutted by evidence to the contrary."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thornburgh · State v. Janssen

2. ““In support of affirmance the State does not ask us to reconsider our holdings in Sloan and Hansen . Instead it seeks to distinguish this case on the basis of the additional final paragraph of instruction 11. Consequently, the only issue before us is whether the concededly erroneous part of 'instruction 11 was cured and rendered harmless by the additional final paragraph. “We find the distinction and argument advanced by the State unpersuasive. As the dissent in Hansen noted, “ ‘Throughout the instructions the trial court put the burden on the State to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ 203 N.W.2d at 224. “Yet, the majority in both Hansen and Sloan , after considering all the instructions as a whole, including those clearly imposing the burden on the State, held the challenged instruction was bad. The mere fact trial court in the instant case inserted a paragraph on the State’s burden in the same instruction, in addition to the other instructions on burden of proof, is an insignificant distinction. “We cannot speculate whether the jury followed the erroneous part of instruction 11 or the curative part. See Stump v. Bennett, 398 F.2d 111 (8 Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1001 , 89 S.Ct. 483 , 21 L.Ed.2d 466 (1968). This instructional inconsistency is indistinguishable from Hansen and Sloan in which we had no way of knowing whether the jury followed the erroneous instructions or the proper instructions on burden of proof. Including tacitly contradictory part”

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

3. “A statute of this State provides that if there is evidence that a person operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway had at the time of said operation more than ten one-hundredths of one percentum by weight of alcohol in his or her blood, the same shall be presumptive evidence that such person was then under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The rule established by the foregoing statute permits the jury to infer that the Defendant was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, if it is found by the jury that at the time Defendant was driving an automobile on a public highway his blood contained more than ten one-hundredths of one percentum of alcohol by weight. However, such inference is not conclusive, but it is rebuttable. It does not shift the burden to Defendant to prove that he was not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage when driving nor does it change the ultimate burden of proof or deprive the Defendant of the presumption of innocence. In short, the result of the breath test is presumptive evidence and, like all evidence, may be accepted or rejected by you. It is still for you to determine from all the facts and circumstances proven whether the State has carried the burden of proving Defendant guilty of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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