262 Ga. App. 806 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[o]ur Supreme Court abolished the inconsistent verdict rule in criminal cases in Milam v. State 5 Thus, Georgia does not recognize an inconsistent verdict rule, which would permit a defendant to challenge the factual findings underlying a guilty verdict on one count as inconsistent with the findings underlying a not guilty verdict on a different count. A conviction on one count and acquittal on another related count may reflect a compromise or lenity by the jury rather than inconsistent factual conclusions, and Georgia courts generally will not look behind the jury’s decision to convict on certain counts and acquit on other counts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 270 Ga. App. 429 - Oliver v. State · 265 Ga. App. 756 - Smith v. State

2. “The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is set out in Jackson v. Virginia. 2 The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. An appellate court determines only the legal sufficiency of the evidence adduced below and does not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 266 Ga. App. 818 - Taylor v. State