Upton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

95 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We have never attempted to set a fixed limit on the interval of time which must elapse between advice to an accused of his constitutional rights and an incriminating statement before a new warning is essential to admissibility of the statement. Probably we never will, because we must view the totality of the circumstances in our independent review of the record to determine whether such a statement is voluntarily made. See Degler v. State, 257 Ark. 388 , 517 S.W.2d 515 (1975). We have held that a three-month interval is too long. Scott v. State, 251 Ark. 918 , 475 S.W.2d 699 . On the other hand, we held that a three-hour delay between warning and confession was not so long as to require repetition of a warning where other evidence that the confession was voluntary preponderated. Summerville v. State, 253 Ark. 16 , 484 S.W.2d 85 . In a factual situation very analogous to this, we found the evidence that a statement was voluntary to be overwhelming in spite of the fact that at least three or four days intervened between the accused’s being informed of his constitutional rights and his relating his version of a killing to officers he asked to come to the jail where he was incarcerated. O’Neal v. State, 253 Ark. 574 , 487 S.W.2d 618 .”

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

2. “When circumstantial evidence rises above suspicion and is properly connected, and when, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the jury is not left to speculation and conjecture alone in arriving at its conclusions, it is basically a question for the jury to determine whether the evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis. Ledford v. State, 234 Ark. 226 , 351 S.W. 2d 425 ; O'Neal v. State, 179 Ark. 1153 , 15 S.W. 2d 976 ; Caradine v. State, 189 Ark. 771 , 75 S.W. 2d 671 . See also Walker v. State, 174 Ark. 1180 , 298 S.W. 20 ; 30 Am. Jur. 2d 295, Evidence § 1125. It is only every other reasonable hypothesis, not every hypothesis, that must be excluded by the evidence. Bartlett v. State, 140 Ark. 553 , 216 S.W. 33 ; Bost v. State, 140 Ark. 254 , 215 S.W. 615 . See also, Walker v. State, supra. The jury certainly should test the reasonableness of any other hypothesis. (At 433.)”

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