Mandich v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It could have been inferred that no other person was near; that the appellant was at the front door and very close to the decedent at the time he was shot; and that the shot came from a revolver in the hands of the appellant. “The appellant makes much of the facts that the gun was never found and that no direct evidence was offered to show that the appellant had ever owned or possessed a weapon of the calibre used in the shooting. The appellant also asks us to examine the evidence to determine whether or not it overcomes every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 162 Ind. App. 222 - Stevenson v. State · Petillo v. State

2. ““While it is necessary that every essential element of the crime charged against the accused should be proved by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, this does not mean that all incidental or subsidiary facts should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence is not to be considered in fragmentary parts, and as though each fact or circumstance stood apart from the others, but the entire evidence is to be considered. The weight of the testimony to be determined from the other evidence may be weak, if not impossible, but when viewed in connection with surrounding facts and circumstances, it may be so well supported as to remove all doubts as to its existence, as detailed by the witnesses. Acts when considered apart from all other evidence may appear innocent, but when considered with other evidence may import guilt.””

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

3. ““. . . When the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is in question, as here, we examine it carefully, not for the purpose of finding whether or not it is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but with the view of deciding whether an inference may be reasonably drawn therefrom tending to support the finding of the trial court. Nelson v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 292 , 163 N. E. 95 ; Faulkenberg v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 491 , 151 N. E. 382 ; Henry v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 14, 20 , 146 N. E. 822 ; Hiner v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 594 , 149 N. E. 168 ; Falk v. State (1914), 182 Ind. 317 , 106 N. E. 354 ; Cavender v . State (1890), 126 Ind. 47 , 25 N. E. 875 .””

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