Torres v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Turrentine v. Mullin · 258 F. Supp. 2d 1168 - Moss v. McKune

2. “[f]irst, a jury is permitted to draw inferences of subjective intent from a defendant’s objective acts. Thus, even when a defendant ... denies having the requisite intent, a jury may disbelieve the defendant if [the defendant’s] words and acts in the fight of all the circumstances make [the defendant’s] explanation seem improbable. Second, a jury is permitted to find that a defendant intends those consequences which he announces a desire to accomplish.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spears v. Mullin · Young v. Sirmons

3. “The question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction is to be determined by examination of the entire record. When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, this Court will determine whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, shows Appellant entered the restaurant, armed with a gun, with the intent to commit armed robbery, and demanded money. His action in firing his weapon at least four times directly at Joseph Sutton support [sic] the jury’s conclusion that he acted with malice aforethought. Appellant also claims the evidence was insufficient to show identity, based upon his belief that the identification testimony was not reliable and did not conclusively show Appellant committed the shooting. However, we have already determined the identification testimony was properly admitted. The jury properly considered the evidence presented, was appropriately instructed on the use of eye-witness identification testimony, and concluded the State’s evidence was sufficient to show Appellant committed the offense. Although there may be conflict in the testimony, if there is competent evidence to support the jury’s finding, this Court will not disturb the verdict on appeal. Review of the entire record reveals sufficient evidence supported the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Young v. Sirmons