47 Ohio App. 2d 330 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more. »» * * "More specifically to the point, however, are the observations of Judge Hunter of the Supreme Court of Indiana in the case of Manlove v. State, 232 N. E. 2d 874 , 878: "'[Wlhere there are two reasonable inferences arising from the circumstantial evidence in a case, one of guilt and another of innocence, it is not the duty or right of this Court to reverse simply because we might believe the circumstances to not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence It is the jury'sfunction, not ours, to weigh conflicting evidence or uncontradicted evidence from which conflicting, yet reasonable, inferences may be drawn and then determine whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence * * " * * * "We conclude that even with respect to conflicting and coexistent hypotheses that are reasonable in the abstract a jury must consider all of the evidence in the case and apply its own determinations”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Graven · State v. Gott

2. ““Similarly, language in State v. Sheppard, supra ( 165 Ohio St. 293 [ 59 O.O. 398 ]), likewise implies that the determination of reasonableness includes a determination of whether the hypothesis is reasonable in view of the weight and credibility that the jury gives to the evidence. (See State v. Williams [1976], 47 Ohio App. 2d 330, 336 [ 1 O.O.3d 393 ].) In paragraph six of the syllabus in State v. Sheppard, supra, this court stated: “ ‘Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon in the proof of any element of a crime, and the jury finds that there is a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, after considering all the evidence, it is its duty to acquit; however, where the jury finds, after full deliberation, that there is no reasonable hypothesis of innocence based on the facts as it finds them to be, and the facts which it finds are irreconcilable with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, it is its duty to convict.’ (Emphasis added.) “Thus, once the jury has reached its decision, an appellate court, in a case where circumstantial evidence is relied upon, will reverse only where the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to enable the jury to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Ohio App. 3d 32 - State v. Cousin · State v. Graven

3. ““ ‘However, it should also be stated that where there are two reasonable inferences arising from the circumstantial evidence in. a case, one of guilt and another of innocence, it is not the duty or right of this Court to reverse simply because we might believe the circumstances to not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. It is the jury’s function, not ours, to weigh conflicting evidence or uncontradicted evidence from which conflicting, yet reasonable, inferences may be drawn and then determine whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. * * *’ ” (Emphasis sic.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 Ohio App. 3d 205 - State v. Davis