State v. Colson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses. This court has also recognized that there is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in terms of probative value.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hinostroza · State v. Kemmerly

2. “The felony-murder statute requires two elements of causation. First, the death must occur within the res gestae of the underlying felony. Second, there must be a direct 7 causal connection between the felony and the homicide. Res gestae refers to acts that occurred 'before, during, or after the happening of the principal occurrence when those acts are so closely connected with the principal occurrence as to form, in reality, a part of the occurrence.' A direct causal connection exists unless an extraordinary intervening event supersedes the defendant's act and becomes the sole legal cause of death. "There are three factors examined in determining whether a direct causal connection is present: time, distance, and the causal relationship between the underlying felony and the killing. [Citations omitted.]”

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

3. “it is permissible for the State to rely on multiple circumstances to support an inference . . . so long as each circumstance has been proved, rather than presumed from another circumstance. In other words, while it is impermissible for a case to rely upon the theory 14 that presumption A leads to presumption B leads to presumption C leads to fact D, it is perfectly proper for the State's case to be grounded upon a theory that presumption A, presumption B, and presumption C all separately point to fact D. [Citation omitted.]”

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