Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 SW3D 370 - State v. Dorantes

State v. Dorantes’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
2
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

56 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Holland v. United States · Cunningham v. California

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

  1. ““When considering a sufficiency of the evidence question on appeal, the State must be afforded the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tenn.2007). “The credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the proof are matters entrusted to the jury as the trier of fact.” State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tenn.2008) (citing Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978)). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn. R.App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). “Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt, the criminal defendant bears the burden on appeal of showing that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.” State v. Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn.2009). In the absence of direct evidence, a criminal offense may be established exclusively by circumstantial evidence. Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Tenn.1973); Marable v. State, 203 Tenn. 440 , 313 S.W.2d 451, 456-58 (1958). Ultimately, however, “[t]he jury decides the weight to be given to”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Defense: I would like to object to the instruction on Flight, Your Honor. We did not hear .any testimony from the officers who testified that any of them told [the Defendant] that he was — that they wanted him — that he should stop. State: Judge, Ms. Chrestman testified that she heard the vehicle pull up. She heard the squeal. She was inside the house; the defendant was outside the house. The defendant ran — the defendant’s legs were cut by him going through' brush — going over fences and so forth for many minutes while six— minimum — police officers were trying to apprehend the defendant. The officers maintained a perimeter. They were on each side of the box, in essence, closing in, when they saw— when they caught the defendant eventually. One of the officers said that he saw the defendant — he looked up and he • saw the defendant twenty or twenty-five feet above him and that he - saw the defendant leave that area and then come back when he was apprehended, by two officers who took.him down. I think it’s pretty clear that there was flight. Court: Also, you know, flight sometimes can be — like you can leave before anyone even finds out that you’re wanted, you can flee. You can go to another state in hopes that no one can find you. Where does — where does' it say'that it had to be an officer ordering him to stop in the flight instruction? State: Judge, it doesn’t. It says whether the evidence presented proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant fled is a question for y”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “with respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.