Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 241 Ga. App. 164 - Eberhart v. State

241 Ga. App. 164 - Eberhart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2021

19 state decisions

1101999200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 195 Ga. App. 463 - Grant v. State · 208 Ga. App. 12 - Williams v. State · 166 Ga. App. 855 - Parham v. State · 233 Ga. App. 781 - Grimsley v. State

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

  1. “The intention with which an act is done is peculiarly for the jury [or finder of fact]. It is often difficult to prove with direct evidence an individual's intent as it existed at the time of the act for which they are being prosecuted. Therefore, it is often necessary to prove such intent through the use of circumstantial evidence. Intent, which is a mental attitude, is commonly detectible only inferentially, and the law accommodates this. OCGA § 16-2-6. A [finder of fact] may infer that a person acted with criminal intent after considering the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted. In order to support a conviction, such circumstantial evidence does not have to exclude every possible hypothesis other than the defendant's guilt, but only reasonable hypotheses. OCGA § 24-4-6. Whether a hypothesis is reasonable is a question for a the [finder of fact], and such finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless the guilty verdict is unsupportable as a matter of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.