Fuentes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Id. (citing Tarray v. State , 410 Md. 594 , 608, 979 A.2d 729 , 737 (2009) ). We defer to any possible reasonable inferences the jury could have drawn from the admitted evidence and need not decide whether the jury could have drawn other inferences from the evidence, refused to draw inferences, or whether we would have drawn different inferences from the evidence. Smith, 374 Md. at 557 , 823 A.2d at 682 ; see also State v. Albrecht, 336 Md. 475 , 478, 649 A.2d 336 , 337 (1994) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 495 - Spell v. State

2. “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

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

3. “[I]t is not the function or duty of the appellate court to undertake a review of the record that would amount to, in essence, a retrial of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 495 - Spell v. State