State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, as in Pond , the State ... argues that a defendant is not entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction merely because a jury might disbelieve some of the State's evidence. In Pond , this Court rejected the State's argument....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Meiners v. State · State of Missouri v. Bruce Pierce

2. “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on any theory the evidence establishes. Hibler, 5 S.W.3d at 150. This Court leaves to the jury determining the credibility of witnesses, resolving conflicts in testimony, and weighing evidence. Rou-san v. State, 48 S.W.3d 576, 595 (Mo. banc 2001). A jury may accept part of a witness’s testimony, but disbelieve other parts. State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 209 (Mo. banc 1996). If the evidence supports differing conclusions, the judge must instruct on each. Hi-bler, 5 S.W.3d at 150.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Bruce Pierce

3. “a. a party timely requests the instruction; 7 b. there is a basis in the evidence for acquitting the defendant of the charged offense; and c. there is a basis in the evidence for convicting the defendant of the lesser included offense for which the instruction is requested.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Bruce Pierce