State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “rejected a claim that the State’s exhibits were insufficient to prove Rattles’ status as an aggravated offender because they showed the convictions occurred on the same date as the offenses” and "that is not the claim made on this appeal[.]” Although Rattles may have involved a separate claim of error concerning the certified driver record, the court’s holding that section 577.023.16 is statutory authoriza- • tion for the trial court to find that there is sufficient evidence of prior offenses , is still controlling in this case. The State’s brief sets forth this view of the holding in Rattles , and Defendant chose not to file a reply brief arguing otherwise. 5 . The cases cited in this paragraph addressed our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in the context of the factual basis supporting a finding of guilt, rather than in the context of the factual basis supporting enhanced punishment. We see no legal basis or logical reason, however, to conclude that this standard is not identical in both contexts, and Defendant cites us to no relevant legal authority otherwise. 6 . "This does not mean driving records are conclusive, irrefutable, or adequate in all cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SHEENA DARLENE CORDELL