373 So. 2d 342 - Cox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is not every hypothesis of innocence, reasonable or unreasonable, possible or imaginary, the evidence must exclude, but only such hypotheses as are reasonable , *Page 453 springing from a consideration and comparison of the entire evidence."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 683 So. 2d 458 - Ex Parte Payne · 683 So. 2d 440 - Payne v. State

2. “a defendant should not be convicted on circumstantial evidence unless [the] evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis but that of the guilt of the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 473 So. 2d 658 - St. John v. State · 683 So. 2d 440 - Payne v. State

3. “"A significant fact is that only two fingerprints were found on a total of approximately ten percent of the cartons of cigarettes that were removed from the store, which seems to negate any theory that many people so handled cartons of cigarettes on display, and left them there, in such a way as to leave fingerprints thereon. For that reason alone, the chance that defendant did so is extremely minimal. "Although defendant had been in the store, there was no evidence that he was a customer of the store. Mr. Davis' testimony indicates, although it does not conclusively show, the contrary. "Although it cannot be said that it would not have been possible for the fingerprint on the carton to have been scientifically lifted therefrom after its longtime presence thereon, it is not likely that cartons of cigarettes for display in a store such as that of Big Star 105 would have remained on display for an indefinitely extended period of time. "Mr. Davis' testimony does not lead to a reasonable conclusion that many customers would handle cartons of cigarettes without buying them and taking them from the store. His testimony was that they were so displayed that 'the general public could pick up a carton or a pack if they decided to buy it. . . .' "Assuming that defendant did touch the particular carton of cigarettes some time before the burglary of the store, the chance of his so grasping it, without buying it, as to leave a fingerprint thereon is infinitely small as compared to the like”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 803 - Hale v. State