State v. Rayfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is not always necessary, of course, to charge the contents of a current statute. Section 16-3-657 prevents trial or appellate courts from finding a lack of sufficient evidence to support a conviction simply because the alleged victim’s testimony is not corroborated. However, § 16-3-657 does much more. In enacting this statute, the Legislature recognized that crimes involving criminal sexual conduct fall within a unique category of offenses against the person. In many cases, the only witnesses to a rape or sexual assault are the perpetrator and the victim. An investigation may or may not reveal physical or forensic evidence identifying a particular perpetrator. The Legislature has decided it is reasonable and appropriate in criminal sexual conduct cases to make abundantly clear — not only to the judge but also to the jury — that a defendant may be convicted solely on the basis of a victim’s testimony.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stukes · State v. Perry

2. “You’re not to infer from anything I have said or done or anything I now say or do as indicating an opinion of mine on the facts. Our law does not allow a trial judge to formulate or express to a jury an opinion on the facts. It’s simply, solely up to you to examine the evidence and to give to the evidence the effect, the value, the weight, and the truth you believe it should have. In doing this, you may believe one witness as opposed to several, several witnesses as opposed to one. You may believe all, part, or none of a witnesses] testimony. In analyzing the evidence, use your common sense, your sense of logic, your sense of reasoning, and your experiences in life. As judges of the facts, you must necessarily judge the credibility, that is the believability, of the witnesses who have testified. In assessing credibility, use the things I just talked about. Use the things that you find in your day-today life as being indicative of truthfulness in an, in an individual, and you can use certain evaluators, a witnesses] demeanor, how they act on the stand, are they hesitant or straightforward, is their testimony consistent or inconsistent. Consider the opportunity a witness had to know things to which the witness testified to. You can consider any bias or prejudice a witness may have. That is, a witness would wish to help or hurt one side or the other, and you can consider whether or not someone has a criminal record in regard to their believability.”

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

3. “A solicitor should bear in mind that he is an officer of the court, who represents all the people, including [the] accused, and [he] occupies a quasi-judicial position, whose sanctions and traditions he should preserve. It is his duty to see that justice is done. He must see that no conviction takes place except in strict conformity with the law, and that [the] accused is not deprived of any constitutional rights or privileges. However strong the prosecuting attorney's belief may be of the prisoner's guilt, it is his duty to conduct the trial in such a manner as will be fair and impartial to the rights of the accused, ... and not say or do anything which might improperly affect or influence the jury or [the] accused's counsel. [1]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Richland County Magistrate's Court