Byrd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 12 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““However, few rules of appellate procedure are more firmly established than this, that it is not within the province of this court, as a court of review, to weigh the evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial. We may not say that the jury was obliged to believe or disbelieve the testimony of the appellant which was adverse to the verdict. If the verdict is supported by evidence of próbative value, it is not for this court to determine whether it establishes the guilt, of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is it for this court to determine whether, in proving such guilt, the evidence excludes every hypothesis to the contrary. This is the responsibility of the jury and the trial court. This court may only determine whether there was substantial evidence of probative value from which the jury could have inferred that the appellant was guilty of the offense charged.””

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

2. ““Concerning the absence of evidence of motive in the case, this Court has stated the rule as follows: “ ‘ “With motives, in any speculative or psychological sense, neither the law, nor the tribunal which administers the law, has any proper concern. The outward acts of men are all that they profess, or are called upon to regulate or to punish. . . . And that motives may be inferred from conduct, as well as conduct from motives, is a familiar principle in the law of presumptive evidence.” ’ [Hinshaw v. State (1877), 147 Ind. 334, 364 , 47 N. E. 157 .] “Also, it has been held that motive may be inferred from the commission of the criminal act. Evans v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 55, 64 , 155 N. E. 203, 206 ; Morgan v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 411, 417 , 130 N. E. 528, 530 .” Byrd v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 452 , 185 N. E. 2d 422, 425 .”

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