State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Convictions based upon circumstantial evidence, as in the instant case, can present a special challenge to the appellate court. Juries are permitted to draw justifiable inferences from proven circumstances and established facts; but the appellate court must determine whether findings based upon inferences are justifiable by applying additional rules of law. “In State v. Gobin, 216 Kan. 278 , 531 P.2d 16 (1975), this court reversed a felony conviction of attempting to steal swine. The proof in that case was entirely circumstantial, and we recited applicable appellate rules including the following: ‘Presumption and inferences may be drawn only from facts established and presumption may not rest upon presumption or inference on inference.’ 216 Kan. at 280 ; see State v. Doyle, 201 Kan. at 488 ; State v. Ragland, 170 Kan. 346, 351 , 226 P.2d 251 (1951). “Black’s Law Dictionary 917 (4th ed. rev. 1968) defines an inference as ‘[a] process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted.’ See Duncan v. Railway Co., 82 Kan. 230, 233 , 108 Pac. 101 (1910) (where a discussion of inference and presumption is made). The presumption referred to is the permissive type, not the mandatory or conclusive presumption. See Stumbo, Presumptions -A View at Chaos, 3 Washburn L. J. 182, 190-91 (1964). “The rule which forbids the basing of an inference on an inference has receiv”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 15 Kan. App. 2d 476 - State v. Cruz · State v. Zeiner

2. ““A trial judge in passing on a motion for judgment of acquittal must determine whether upon the evidence, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact therefrom, a reasonable mind, or rational trier of facts, might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mack, 228 Kan. 83, 89 , 612 P.2d 158 (1980) and cases cited therein. In a criminal action where the defendant contends the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction, the standard of review on appeal is: Does the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution convince the appellate court that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? State v. Peoples, 227 Kan. 127, 133 , 605 P.2d 135 (1980), and cases cited therein. In considering the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction, this court looks only to the evidence in favor of the verdict, it does not weigh the evidence and if the essential elements of the charge are sustained by any competent evidence the conviction must stand. State v. Peoples, 227 Kan. at 133 ; State v. Racey, 225 Kan. 404, 407 , 590 P.2d 1064 (1979). A conviction of even the gravest offenses may be sustained by circumstantial evidence. State v. White & Stewart, 225 Kan. 87 , Syl. ¶ 14, 587 P.2d 1259 (1978).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hutton · State v. Salem