State v. Kringstad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence when, even after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.... The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars retrial in such a case- It follows, therefore, that our review of an appeal founded upon alleged evidentiary insufficiency must be subject to the same standard as an appeal from a judgment of guilty, or an appeal from the denial of a motion for entry of a judgment of acquittal; that is, we will look only to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. ⅜: ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ “When a motion for a new trial is made on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence the issues are far different. The trial judge may, within limits, weigh the evidence and in so doing evaluate for himself the credibility of the witnesses. ⅜ ⅝ sfc ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ “[I]t is within the discretion of a trial court to grant a new trial if it concludes that a guilty verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” [Citations omitted.]”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Yineman · State v. Azure

2. “Thus, to be relevant in this case, the prior charge of rape must necessarily have been false.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sieler · Roundtree v. United States

3. “[T]he State presented not one single piece of consistent evidence to support the conviction in the instant case, including even the one "neutral" witness, Deputy Dion Bitz. Deputy Bitz himself had to admit that he had no excuse for his failure to process the scene of the incident and that he made no attempt to go out to the site the next day due to the fact that he was on vacation, even though it would be a normal part of the investigative procedure to do so to determine the accuracy of the sole statement he had taken. Further, even though Arley Bloomgren painted a graphic encounter with Kenneth Yineman, including the two occupants of Mr. Yineman's vehicle stopping, exiting, and approaching while making threatening "scalping" motions, the testimony presented by the other occupant of Mr. Bloomgren's vehicle directly refuted this roadside encounter. Rose Marie Bloomgren testified that nobody exited Mr. Yineman's vehicle after it pulled over directly contradicting her husband's flamboyant story of this encounter. This represents the sum total of the evidence presented by the State, and while trial counsel did not move for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure and chose to present an affirmative defense of duress, the presentation of such defense placed the circumstances of the incident into a they said/we said mode of conflicting testimony. This is not enough to support a "reasonable inference" of guilt "warranting a convi”

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