249 Ga. App. 104 - Locklear v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In a case entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence,... the State’s evidence must both be consistent with the hypoth esis of guilt and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. ... In making a determination of whether any other reasonable hypothesis exists, the defendant’s explanation must be taken into consideration insofar as it is consistent with the circumstantial evidence properly admitted. Whether or not in a given case circumstances are sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused is primarily a question for determination by the jury. However, where there appears a hypothesis from the evidence, or from the lack of evidence and the defendant’s statement, pointing to the innocence of the accused, and which tested by all human experience is a reasonable one, this Court may declare it so as a matter of law. 7”

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

2. “Even when the circumstantial evidence creates a strong suspicion of guilt, mere suspicion is insufficient to support a conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. LINDLEY v. the STATE.