Buise v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This court has repeatedly stated that when considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, it will adhere to the following rule: This Court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve the questions of credibility, but will look to the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict of the trial court or jury. Washington v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 888 ; Davis v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 893 ; Grimm v. State (1970), Ind., 258 N.E.2d 407 ; Sharp v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 593 ; Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 558 ; and Langley v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 29 , 232 N.E.2d 611 . A conviction must be affirmed, if having applied the rule, there is evidence of probative value from which the trier of the facts could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Gann v. State (1971), Ind., 269 N.E.2d 381 ; Asher v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 25 , 244 N.E.2d 89 ."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 Ind. App. 235 - Hicks v. State · 157 Ind. App. 319 - Crane v. State

2. ““The purpose of an opening statement is primarily to inform the jury of the nature of the case and the nature of the defense and just how the evidence as presented fits into the charges filed and the defense made. Blume, Kissinger v . State (1963), 244 Ind. 121 , 189 N.E.2d 568 . The opening statement is not evidence and the jury is so instructed. Neither is an argument permitted. Therefore, the defendant can not be said to have been harmed unless the State has abused its privilege in making the opening statement by misstatement or false statements which have prejudicially misled a defendant. “The procedure at one time in the state by statute permitted the defendant to make an opening statement after the State had presented its case in chief. This has changed by statute and we can find no valid reason presented by the defendant why such procedure, as now fixed by statute, is invalid or prejudicial. The defendant points out nothing in the opening statement by the prosecuting attorney that misled or surprised him. “It is further to be noted that the procedure for discovery was also available for the defendant in order to apprise himself what the evidence of the State would be. There is very little ground for a defendant to be taken by surprise in his defense under the present criminal procedure for discovery.” (Our emphasis.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Ind. App. 545 - Fleetwood v. State

3. “"Remarks, inadvertent and those made under the tensions or heat of the contest, creep in; but we must assume a jury of rational men under the instruction of the court will disregard improper remarks. In the case of Keifer v. State (1933), 204 Ind. 454 , 184 N.E. 557 , the court stated that: `... Where it appears that reasonable and prompt measures are taken by the trial court to prevent any injurious effect from such improper remarks, it will be presumed that the error has been cured, in the absence of a contrary showing.' Therefore, without a showing to the contrary, we are unable to find reversible error in appellant's allegation."”

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