State v. Cosby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The State has the burden to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he is not guilty. You must presume that he is not guilty unless you are convinced from the evidence that he is guilty. "The test you must use in determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the State, you must find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of each of the claims required to be proved by the State, you should find the defendant guilty. "It is for you to determine the weight and credit to be given the testimony of each witness. You have a right to use common knowledge and experience in regard to the matter about which a witness has testified."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Watson · State v. Doyle

2. ““ ‘When sufficiency of evidence is challenged in a criminal case, our standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, examined in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we are convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ State v. Prine, 287 Kan. 713, 738 , 200 P.3d 1 (2009) (citing State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 59 , 194 P.3d 563 [2008]; State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 474 , 153 P.3d 532 [2007]). ‘In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will not reweigh the evidence. It is the jury’s function, not ours, to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.’ State v. Doyle, 272 Kan. 1157, 1162-63 , 38 P.3d 650 (2002) (citing State v. Aikens, 261 Kan. 346, 391-92 , 932 P.2d 408 [1997]).” State v. Cosby, 293 Kan. 121, 133-34 , 262 P.3d 285 (2011).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Portillo

3. ““Ordinarily a statement offered merely to stow the declarant’s state of mind is admissible. This is true either because it is not offered to show tire truth of the matter asserted and therefore does not qualify as hearsay in tire first place, see [State v. ] Boldridge, 289 Kan. [618,] 634, [ 215 P.3d 585 (2009)]; or, even if it qualifies as hearsay, it fits under a statutory exception for statements describing the then-existing state of mind of the declarant, see K.S.A. 60-460(1).” State v. Cosby, 293 Kan. 121, 128 , 262 P.3d 285 (2011).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Smith-Parker