State v. May’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While none of these circumstances taken individually flatly contradicts defendant’s statement, taken together they are sufficient to ‘throw a different light on the circumstances of the homicide’ and to impeach defendant’s version of the incident. The State is not bound, therefore, by the exculpatory portions of defendant’s statement. The case is for the jury.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rook · State v. Wooten

2. “Anne Speight Hinson late of the County of Scotland on the 12th day of February 1982, with force and arms, at and in the said County, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder David Floyd Hinson contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hinson · State v. Williams

3. “* * * [W]e are of the opinion that every fact or circumstance relied upon by the State need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element, of which the facts and circumstances of a case are a part, must be so proved. Thus, it is sufficient for conviction that the jury is satisfied upon the whole evidence that each element of the crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Other jurisdictions have taken a similar approach where evidence of other crimes has been offered on the question of intent. In Scott v. State, 107 Ohio St. 475 , 141 N.E. 19 (1923), defendant was convicted of soliciting and accepting a bribe. During trial, evidence of defendant's commission of other similar offenses was introduced on the issue of intent. During the trial court's charge, the jury was instructed: "In determining the intent * * * you may consider the testimony as to other [crimes] * * * by the defendant, if any you find from the evidence has been [committed]." 141 N.E. at 25 . Defendant assigned as error the omission from the charge that the other crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In rejecting this contention, the court reasoned that, in order to convict, the State must prove each material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The State was not, however, required to prove every fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion, the court stated: "Now, the intent is one of the elements that must be established to prove the crime of bribery. The testimony as to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 158 N.J. Super. 1 - State v. Wilson