State v. Manning’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably State v. Adams (1996), State v. Cherry (2004)
44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Holland v. United States · Cage v. Louisiana · Taylor v. Kentucky · State v. Edwards
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Circumstantial evidence is good, provided it meets the legal test to the extent that the State relies on circumstantial evidence. It must prove all the circumstances relied on beyond a reasonable doubt. They must be wholly and in every particular perfectly consistent with one another. They must point conclusively, that is, to the moral certainty to the guilt of the accused to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis, that is, they must be absolutely inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. In other words, in the consideration of circumstantial evidence, the jury must seek some reasonable explanation thereof other than the guilt of the accused, and if such reasonable explanation can be found, you cannot convict on such evidence. Of course, you can consider the circumstantial evidence along with all the direct evidence that you heard from this witness stand. I charge you further that the mere fact that the circumstances are strongly suspicious and the defendant's guilt probable, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction because the proof offered by the State must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, and must satisfy you the jury of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The two phrases "beyond a reasonable doubt," and, "proof to a moral certainty" are synonymous and the legal equivalent of each other.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Todd v. State · State v. Grippon“I would instruct you to seek some reasonable explanation of the circumstances proven other than the guilt of the defendant and if such a reasonable explanation can be found you would find the Defendant not guilty. ... (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Todd v. State · State v. Charping
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.