Christen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . where the evidence is circumstantial, as it was in this case, it must be of so conclusive a character and point so surely and unerringly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. However, this rule is for the guidance of trial courts and juries and should be observed by them. It is not for this court. This court has upon it a duty to consider, not to weigh, the evidence in this case for the purpose of determining whether there is any substantial evidence of probative value from which a jury reasonably could have inferred that the appellant was guilty of the offense charged. . . . it would not be its duty or right to reverse simply because we might believe the circumstances do not exclude every hypothesis of innocence. . . .But there must be some substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable inference of guilt may be drawn. The verdict may not be based upon mere suspicion, possibility, guess or conjecture.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Laymon v. State · 155 Ind. App. 252 - Tyler v. State

2. ““So even if this court thought that there were two reasonable inferences arising from the circumstantial evidence in this case, one of guilt and the other of innocence, it would not be its duty or right to reverse simply because we might believe the circumstances do not exclude every hypothesis of innocence. Wrassman v. State, supra; Lee v. State, supra; Gears v. State, supra; Scharillo v. State (1934), 207 Ind. 22, 24 , 191 N. E. 76 ; Pettit v. State (1935), 207 Ind. 478, 483 , 188 N. E. 784 ; Finch v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 633, 638 , 56 N. E. 2d 851 ; Inman v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 500, 504 , 62 N. E. 2d 627 . That was for the jury to say. It is the jury’s function, not ours, to weigh conflicting evidence or uncontradicted evidence from which conflicting inferences may be drawn and determine whether every hypothesis of innocence is excluded. The only question before this court is whether or not there was [some substantial] evidence from which the jury reasonably might have drawn an inference of guilt.””

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

3. “Where the circumstantial evidence in a case is of such a character that two conflicting inferences may be reasonably drawn therefrom, one favorable to or tending to prove the guilt of the accused, and the other favorable to his innocence, then, under such circumstances, it is not within the province of this court to determine which inference ought to have controlled the jury. The question, in such a case manifestly becomes one of fact for the decision of the jury, subject to review by the trial court, and is not, as previously said, open to review on appeal. American Varnish Co. v. Reed, 154 Ind. 88 ; McCaughey v. State, ante, 41.’ ””

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