Engbrecht v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Engbrecht v. State, 268 So.2d 507 (Miss. 1971), this Court quoting from Brooks v. State, Miss., 242 So.2d 865, 869 (1971) stated: The general rule is that in a criminal prosecution evidence which shows or tends to show that accused is guilty of the commission of other offenses at other times is not admissible, unless the other offenses are reasonably connected with that for which he is on trial. There is a substantial number of these exceptions. Evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove identity of the defendant, scienter or guilty or criminal knowledge, criminal intent or purpose, motive, a plan or system of criminal action where a continuing offense is charged, or where other crimes form a part of the res gestae. Lee v. State, 244 Miss. 813 , 146 So.2d 736 (1962); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence §§ 320, 321 (1967). The "acid test is its logical relevancy to the particular excepted purpose or purposes" for which the evidence of prior offenses is sought to be introduced. [ 339 So.2d at 990 ].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 398 So. 2d 1308 - Aldridge v. State · 339 So. 2d 989 - Wansley v. State

2. “The possession of recently stolen goods is like any other circumstance in evidence, which, if unexplained, would point logically to guilt and from which the jury, as trier of fact, might reasonably infer guilt, if they chose to do so. As reasonable men, jurors must be assumed to attach to circumstances in evidence such significance as human experience has taught they deserve. The unexplained possession of recently stolen goods must be ranked in strength with the proverbial circumstance of the finding of a "trout in the milk" as being a circumstance pointing with great cogency to a particular conclusion. (268 So.2d at 509).”

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

3. “The court instructs the jury that the possession of property recently stolen is a circumstance which may be considered by the jury and from it, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, the jury may infer guilt.”

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