Ringham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““INSTRUCTION NO. 5 “The Court further instructs you that while it is the law that every person charged with the commission of a crime is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, yet if the evidence is so strong and conclusive as to overcome the presumption of innocence you should convict. While it is necessary that every essential element of the crime charged in the affidavit in this case should be proven by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not necessary that each incidental or subsidiary fact should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt Evidence should not be considered in fragmentary parts or as if each fact or circumstance stood apart from the others, but the entire evidence should be considered and the weight of evidence should be determined from the whole body thereof.” “INSTRUCTION NO. 7 “The Court further instructs you that you should not indulge in purely speculative doubts, and the bare possibility that the defendant may be innocent does not raise a reasonable doubt. The question of defendant’s guilt must be determined by each of you in view of your obligation to act honestly and fairly in weighing the evidence and reaching a decision which your oaths impose.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Emory v. State · Burris v. State

2. ““Appellant cites White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209 , 125 N.E.2d 705 , which holds that the use of the term ‘subsidiary evidence’ is ambiguous and could only serve to confuse the jury in a manner prejudicial to an appellant. However, the Court went on to say: ‘For example, evidence of a subsidiary fact and subsidiary evidence of a primary fact are obviously distinguishable, but application of the terms by laymen to the evidence could only serve to confuse the issues.’ 234 Ind. 213 -214, 125 N.E.2d 706 . In the case at bar the instruction complained of does not use the term ‘subsidiary evidence’ but correctly uses the term ‘subsidiary facts.’ The instruction as given in this case is proper. It is proper for a court to instruct a jury that every material element of the crime charged should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this doctrine has no application to every incidental or subsidiary fact. It is the evidence in its entirety which is to be weighed and considered as to whether or not as a whole the evidence has established every material element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. 8 I.L.E. Criminal Law § 343.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 162 Ind. App. 445 - Hartwell v. State · 165 Ind. App. 664 - Abel v. State

3. ““There is nothing in the case to indicate that Bertha Jeffers was involved in the killing of her former husband nor was there any indication whatever that she had an ulterior motive to testify in a manner detrimental to the appellant. Specific evidence of the deceased’s misconduct toward the witness, Bertha Jeffers, was in no way pertinent to the evidence elicited from her concerning the incident resulting in the deceased’s death.” 261 Ind. at 630 , 308 N.E.2d at 865 .”

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