State v. Heinzer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ill In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. We cannot retry the facts, but must take the view of the evidence most favorable to the state and must assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence. If the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty, that verdict will not be reversed.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Armstrong · State v. Carver

2. “we will construe the record most favorably to the State and will assume the evidence supporting the conviction was believed and the contrary evidence disbelieved, (citations omitted). This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury. State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn.1980). Additionally, corroboration of the testimony of a complainant in sex crime offenses is not required. Minn. Stat. § 609.347 , subd. 1 (1982).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hanson

3. “Detailed definitions need not be given in jury instructions if the instructions do not mislead the jury or allow it to speculate over the meaning of the elements. Words of common usage within the ordinary understanding of a juror need not be defined by the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Currie