Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. We have repeatedly held that, in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture.”

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

2. “We have said that there is no distinction between principals on the one hand and accomplices on the other, insofar as criminal liability is concerned. Jefferson v. State, 359 Ark. 454 , 198 S.W.3d 527 (2004). When two people assist one another in the commission of a crime, each is an accomplice and criminally liable for the conduct of both. Cook v. State, 350 Ark. 398 , 86 S.W.3d 916 (2002). One cannot disclaim accomplice liability simply because he did not personally take part in every act that went to make up the crime as a whole. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 Ark. App. 210 - Barber v. State