State v. Guirlando’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant testified and denied knowledge of ... the marijuana. The jury viewed the defendant's appearance and demeanor when he testified. Their verdict indicates they found the defendant's testimony was not credible and, therefore, they gave it no weight and rejected it. This is a finding of fact over which this court has no jurisdiction.... The jurors could have reasonably inferred that the failure of the defendant to tell the truth supported the inference that the truth was unfavorable to him and also showed an awareness of wrongdoing. Further, as indicated by [ State v. ] Captville, [ 448 So.2d 676 (La.1984)] when the jury rejects the defendant's hypothesis of innocence presented by his testimony, the defendant is guilty unless there is another reasonable hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.... Once it is factually established that the defendant was untruthful when he denied knowledge of the presence of the marijuana, the only remaining reasonable hypothesis is that he had knowledge of its presence. He either knew or he did not; there is no other hypothesis. The foregoing circumstances and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom provide sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Headquarters · 604 So. 2d 137 - State v. Major

2. “4. Such a finding of purposeful misrepresentation reasonably raises the inference of a "guilty mind", just as in the case of "flight" following an offense or the case of a material misrepresentation of facts by a defendant following an offense. See State v. Davenport, 445 So.2d 1190 (La.1984). "Lying" has been recognized as indicative of an awareness of wrongdoing. See State v. Rault, 445 So.2d 1203 (La. 1984), in which this court, in rejecting as unreasonable an asserted "hypothesis of innocence" (based on defendant's own statement), stated: "The jury could have reasonably concluded that Rault concocted this version of the crime to hide his own guilt". 445 So.2d at 1213. Any contrary implications in State v. Savoy, 418 So.2d 547 (La.1982), and State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 (La. 1983), simply mean that such evidence, although admissible to support a "guilty mind", are not alone sufficient to convict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 568 So. 2d 1379 - State v. Alpaugh

3. “The jury viewed the defendant's appearance and demeanor when he testified. Their verdict indicates they found the defendant's testimony was not credible and, therefore, they gave it no weight and rejected it. This is a finding of fact over which this court has no jurisdiction. La. Const. of 1974, art. V, § 10(B); Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 , 102 S.Ct. 2211 , 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); State v. Trosclair, 443 So.2d 1098 (La.1983) [ cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1205 , 104 S.Ct. 3593 , 82 L.Ed.2d 889 (1984)]; State v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La.1983); State v. Marshall, 479 So.2d 598 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1985); State v. Jacobs, 435 So.2d 1014 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983). The jurors could have reasonably inferred that the failure of the defendant to tell the truth supported the inference that the truth was unfavorable to him and also showed an awareness of wrongdoing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 610 So. 2d 991 - State v. Williams