209 Md. App. 174 - Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We review “an issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal trial by determining ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” Titus v. State, 423 Md. 548, 557 [ 32 A.3d 44 ] (2011) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 [ 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ] (1979)). The “fact-finder is free to believe part of a witness’s testimony, disbelieve other parts of a witness’s testimony, or to completely discount a witness’s testimony.” Pryor v. State, 195 Md.App. 311, 329 [ 6 A.3d 343 ] (2010). “We ‘must give deference to all reasonable inferences [that] the fact-finder draws, regardless of whether [the appellate court] would have chosen a different reasonable inference.’ ” Cox v. State, 421 Md. 630, 657 [ 28 A.3d 687 ] (2011) (quoting Bible v. State, 411 Md. 138, 156 [ 982 A.2d 348 ] (2009)).”

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

2. “There are good reasons for requiring an objection at the conclusion of the instructions even though the party had previously made a request. If the omission is brought to the trial court’s attention by an objection, the court is given an opportunity to amend or correct its charge. Moreover, a party initially requesting a particular instruction may be entirely satisfied with the instructions as actually given.”

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

3. “both fairness and judicial efficiency ordinarily require that all challenges that a party desires to make to a trial court’s ruling, action, or conduct be presented in the first instance to the trial court so that (1) a proper record can be made with respect to the challenge, and (2) the other parties and the trial judge are given an opportunity to consider and respond to the challenge.”

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