State v. Breed’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact, without an inference, and which in itself, if true establishes that fact. Circumstantial evidence means evidence that proves a fact from which an infer ence of the existence of another fact may be shown. It is not necessary that facts be proven by direct evidence. They may be proved also by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. Where the case of the state rests substantially or entirely on circumstantial evidence, you are not permitted to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged against him unless the proved circumstances are not only consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion and each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant’s guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If all the facts and circumstances shown can be reasonably accounted for upon any theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant, the jury must acquit the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Fast Horse · State v. Eagle Star

2. “The trial court did not instruct the jury that where the case of the state rests substantially or entirely on circumstantial evidence, they are not permitted to convict the accused unless (1) the proved circumstances are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion and (2) each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the accused’s guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury in our opinion clearly and substantially prejudiced appellant. Even though this issue was not raised on appeal, we conclude that this plain error requires a retrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Fast Horse