State v. Mayers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We examine the record solely to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime [ ] beyond a reasonable doubt.” Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2, 12 [ 796 A.2d 821 ] (2002); accord Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 [ 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ] (1979) (“[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction ... is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”) In so doing, “[i]t is not our role to retry the case.” Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174, 185 [ 999 A.2d 986 ] (2010). Rather, “[b]ecause the fact-finder possesses the unique opportunity to view the evidence and to observe first-hand the demeanor and to assess the credibility of witnesses during their live testimony, we do not re-weigh the credibility of witnesses or attempt to resolve any conflicts in the evidence.” Id., citing Tarray v. State, 410 Md. 594, 608 [ 979 A.2d 729 ] (2009). We defer to any possible reasonable inferences the [trier of fact] could have drawn from the admitted evidence and need not decide whether the [trier of fact] could have drawn other inferences from the evidence, refused to draw inferences, or whether we would have drawn different inferences from the evidence. State v. Smith, 374 Md. 527, 557 [ 823 A.2d 664 ] (2003); see also State v. Albrecht, 336 Md. 4”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walker v. State · Albertson v. State

2. “[In Goldberg ] there was nothing in the record demonstrating that the victim offered any resistance and the prosecut ing witness testified that the defendant did not threaten her in any way. In contrast, however, in the present case, [the complainant] resisted both verbally, by saying “no” over and over again, and also physically, by pushing Mayers’s hands away from her breast and vagina, while experiencing fear that Mayers would force her to perform fellatio on him or that she would contract a sexually transmitted disease in the absence of a condom. In the present case, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have determined that Mayers employed force or the threat of force to perpetrate the act of cunnilingus on [the complainant]. In terms of force, [the complainant] verbally resisted Mayers’s advances, saying “no” over and over again. When Mayers would not relent, [the complainant] also physically resisted, pushing his hands away from her breast and vagina. [The complainant] further testified that Mayers took off her shorts by “getting on top of her,” evidence of the application of force beyond that which is part of the sexual act itself. Furthermore, [the complainant] testified regarding her fear of Mayers. [The complainant] recounted that she was awakened from sleep, having complained of being ill, and also that Mayers smelled of alcohol and marijuana. [The complainant] further testified that she repeatedly said “no,” but that Mayers would not relent, and also physicall”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 220 Md. App. 132 - In Re JAMES R.

3. ““We examine the record solely to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In so doing, it is not our role to retry the case. Rather, because the fact-finder possesses the unique opportunity to view the evidence ..., we do not re-weigh the credibility of witnesses or attempt to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. We defer to any possible reasonable inferences the [finder of fact] could have drawn from the admitted evidence and need not decide whether the [finder of fact] could have drawn other inferences from the evidence, refused to draw inferences, or whether we would have drawn different inferences from the evidence.””

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