State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 27 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * Therefore, it becomes necessary for the State of Minnesota to prove each essential element of the crime charged in the Indictment to the degree hereinafter stated in order to establish the defendant’s guilt. ***** “The defendant having entered a plea of not guilty, you are instructed that it is the law that he is presumed to be innocent of the charge that has been made against him until you are satisfied by evidence of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * “It is also the law necessarily incident to this presumption of innocence that the burden of proof rests upon the State to prove the defendant guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * “* * * The State, however, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the crime charged in order to justify a conviction. ***** “* * * Murder in the Second Degree is defined as follows by statute: ‘Whoever causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of such person or another, but without premeditation, is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree.’ The essential elements of this lesser offense, namely Murder in the Second Degree, each element of which the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant of Murder in the Second Degree are: * * * (3) That such killing was done with a design to kill, but not with a premeditated design to kill. * ¡k * # # «* * * [A]nd, further and very important, it is for you to say what reasonable conclusions and”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. O'NEILL

2. ““* * * [Wjhere specific intent is an essential element of the offense charged, it can never be presumed, at least in the sense that it must be found from a given state of facts in the absence of countervailing or rebutting evidence. Like every other essential element of the crime, specific intent must be established beyond reasonable doubt or be reasonably deducible from the evidence. It may not rest on a presumption.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Geiselhart v. Tahash

3. “"In testing the validity of statutes creating prima facie proof for use in criminal cases, we must keep in mind not only the guarantees of due process and trial by jury and the constitutional protection against being compelled to testify—which are expressly enumerated—but also such fundamental rights as the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *"”

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