State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Before the defendant can be found guilty of burglary in the second degree the burden is upon the State to establish by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of the following propositions: 1. That on or about the 2nd day of September, 1979, in Scott County, Iowa, the defendant either broke or entered or remained in at a time when the same was closed to the public, a boat owned by one Marcus Low or the premises known as the Lindsey Yacht Club. 2. That (a) said boat was an occupied structure, or (b) that Lindsey Yacht Club was an area enclosed in a manner as to provide a place for the keeping of valuable property secure from theft as defined in instruction No. 8. 3. That the defendant had no right, license or privilege to enter or remain in said occupied structure or area. 4. That such occupied structure and/or enclosed area were not open to the public at the time. 5. That at said time it was the intent of the defendant to commit a theft. If the State has failed to so establish one or more of the foregoing propositions beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty of the offense of burglary in the second degree, and you will then consider the lesser included offense of criminal trespass; but if the State has established all of said propositions by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to find the defendant guilty of such offense.”

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

2. “If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of the following facts, then you may, but are not required to, infer that the defendant broke the Raymond Peterson residence: (a) That the property claimed to have been stolen from the Raymond Peterson was, in fact, stolen at the time such residence was broken. (b) That the defendant had unexplained possession of that property. (c) That defendant’s possession of that property was recent. What is recent possession of property cannot be precisely determined. The nature of the property, its ease of transfer and all other facts and circumstances shown are to be considered as bearing on whether the interval between the time of the alleged burglary and the defendant’s alleged possession was so short as to render it reasonably certain that there could have been no intermediate change of possession. It is important that you keep in mind that it is your exclusive province as jurors to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in this case warrant any inference which the law permits you to draw from possession of recently stolen property, and you are not required to make this inference. If any possession a defendant may have had of recently stolen property is consistent with innocence, or if you entertain reasonable doubt of guilt, then you must acquit the defendant.”

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

3. “In our opinion bare proof of possession of property recently stolen does not permit, as a matter of law, the rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the possessor committed the break in since possession alone could well support an inference of guilt for other crimes besides burglary. Consequently, where a party in possession of recently stolen property is charged with burglary there must be evidence in the record relating to the surrounding circumstances for the jury to consider in determining whether the evidence warrants a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact defendant committed the breaking and entering from the proved fact he possessed recently stolen property.”

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