Steinbarger v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““By this instruction the law of reasonable doubt (Burns’ 1942 Replacement, § 9— 1806) is materially modified and to some extent supplanted by another rule that is somewhat similar to the law applicable in determining the question of negligence in a tort action. This is error. The jury in a criminal case may not act upon evidence that convinces ‘the guarded judgment’; nor may it be told by an instruction to make such inferences as the guarded judgment of a reasonable man, ordinarily would make under like circumstances. On the contrary, to convict the evidence must be such as to convince the jury of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The giving of this mandato ry instruction is reversible error. To the extent Wolf v. State, [ 198 Ind. 267 , 151 N.E. 733 ] supra, holds to the contrary it is overruled.” 226 Ind. at 605 , 82 N.E.2d 519 .”

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

2. “In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.”

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