363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

155 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While a jury is under a duty to draw whatever permissible inferences it may from the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise that the accused is guilty of the offense charged does not authorize a conviction. Smith v. State , 345 So.2d 325 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed, 345 So.2d 329 (Ala. 1976); Colley v. State , 41 Ala. App. [273] 275, 128 So.2d 525 (1961). A defendant should not be convicted on mere suspicion or out of fear that he might have committed the crime. Harnage v. State , 49 Ala. App. 563 , 274 So.2d 333 (1972). While reasonable inferences from the evidence may furnish a basis for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Royals v. State , 36 Ala. App. 11 , 56 So.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Ala. 390 , 56 So.2d 368 (1952), mere possibility, suspicion, or guesswork, no matter how strong, will not overturn the presumption of innocence. Sauls v. State , 29 Ala. App. 587 , 199 So. 254 (1941); Riley v. State , 28 Ala. App. 389 , 187 So. 247 (1939); Rungan v. State , 25 Ala. App. 287 , 145 So. 171 (1932); Guin v. State , 19 Ala. App. 67 , 94 So. 788 (1922). "An inference is merely a permissible deduction from the proven facts which the jury may accept or reject or give such probative value to as it wishes. Roberts v. State , 346 So.2d 473 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied 346 So.2d 478 (Ala. 1978); Hale v. State , 45 Ala. App. 97 , 225 So.2d 787 , cert. denied 284 Ala. 730 , 225 So.2d 790 (1969); Orr v. State , 32 Ala. App. 77 , 21 So.2d 574”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parker v. State · Patterson v. State

2. “"`In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must accept as true all evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and consider all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. . . .' It is not the function of this Court to decide whether the evidence is believable beyond a reasonable doubt . . .; rather, the function of this Court is to determine whether there is legal evidence from which a rational finder of fact could have, by fair inference, found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Thus, `[t]he role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts are. [Their role] is to judge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to allow submission of an issue for decision [by] the jury.'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burton v. State · 424 So. 2d 722 - Payne v. State

3. “"The mere fact that a defendant is sitting in the driver's seat of an automobile into which a robber enters affords no legal inference that the defendant is the `get-away' driver or a participant in the robbery. While such circumstances do raise a suspicion that the defendant might be involved in the crime, they alone afford no circumstantial evidence of involvement or participation but only tend to support the possibility."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 462 So. 2d 781 - Prantl v. State · 415 So. 2d 1246 - Thomas v. State