Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The indictment or information, or any-pleading in the case, may allege that the offense was committed in the county were the prosecution is carried on. To sustain the allegation of venue, it shall only be necessary to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that by reason of the facts in the case, the county where such prosecution is carried on has venue. Proof of venue must be demonstrated by either direct or circumstantial evidence. “Venue,” as applied to criminal cases, means the place in which the prosecution is to begin. When conduct constituting a single offense is committed in more than one county, venue is proper in any of those counties. Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight and degree of credible evidence. Venue is not a constituent element of the offense charged, and the failure to prove venue does not negate the guilt of the accused.”

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

2. “Venue statutes function to ensure that jurors have a natural interest in the case because it touched their community; to ensure that prosecutions are initiated in counties that have some factual connection to the case, thus minimizing inconvenience to parties and witnesses; to aid predictability in judicial caseloads, and to prevent forum-shopping by the State.”

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