State v. Wilkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

157 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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The probative values of direct and circumstantial evidence are intrinsically similar and there is no logically sound reason for drawing a distinction as to the weight to be assigned to each. We believe that whatever type of evidence is introduced in a criminal trial (whether it be termed direct, indirect, testimonial, circumstantial or a combination) the trier of fact must apply the same test to convict the defendant and if there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt then the defendant should not be found guilty. This court now feels it is time to discard our former rule requiring a circumstantial evidence instruction to be given. “A proper instruction on ‘reasonable doubt’ as applied to all kinds of evidence gives the jury an appropriate standard upon which to make a determination of guilt or innocence; to instruct further on the probative force of circumstantial evidence is to invite the confusion of semantics; and we disapprove statements to the contrary found in State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 362 , 503 P.2d 168 , State v. Hale, 207 Kan. 446, 450 , 485 P.2d 1338 , and in any other decision of this court contra to our holding in the instant case. “We hold an instruction on circumstantial evidence, which cautions the jury that a defendant should not be found guilty unless the facts and circumstances proved exclude every reasonable theory of innocence or states that the jury cannot convict the defendant on circumstantial evidence unless the circumstances exclude every reaso”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Shaffer · State v. Powell

2. “"Instruction No. 2. The law places the burden upon the State to prove the defendant is guilty. The law does not require the defendant to prove his innocence. Accordingly, you must assume that the defendant is innocent unless you are convinced from all the evidence in the case that he is guilty. "You should evaluate the evidence admitted in this case and determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant entirely in accordance with these instructions. The test you must use is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims made by the State, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of them, you should find the defendant guilty. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt that will leave a juror's mind in such a condition that one cannot say that he or she has been convinced to a moral certainty of the defendant's guilt. "A reasonable doubt, if there is one, must arise after a careful consideration of all the evidence and it must arise out of the evidence, or lack of evidence, admitted in the trial of the case." (Emphasis supplied.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Trujillo · Hankins v. State

3. ““There is some support for this type of instruction in the lower court decisions [citations omitted], but the better rule is that where the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, such an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing and incorrect____ Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is con vinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bailey v. State · 481 So. 2d 793 - MacK v. State