5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
312 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 312 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably 24 Md. App. 128 - Andresen v. State (1975), 9 Md. App. 15 - Metz v. State (1970)
312 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Giles v. State · Berger v. State · Shelton v. State · Jones v. State · Edwards v. State
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 312 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Once the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is properly before us, we believe that the criteria used to determine the question is the same, be the verdict rendered by the court or a jury. Whether the test applicable to jury cases is stated in the affirmative — the judgment will be affirmed if there is any relevant evidence before the jury to sustain a conviction — or in the negative — to overturn a judgment there must be no legally sufficient evidence on which the defendant could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — it is inherent that to be sufficient in law to justify the conviction within the intent of [Code (1957, 1967 Repl. Vol., 1967 Cum. Supp.)] Art. 27, § 593 the admissible evidence adduced must show directly or support a rational inference of the facts to be proved, from which the jury could fairly be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt of the offense charged.” 5 Md. App. at 458-59 (emphasis added).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"whether the evidence either shows directly or supports a rational inference of the facts to be proved, from which the trier of fact could fairly be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt of the offense charged."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Runkles · Wilson v. State“[T]he issue comes before us in a case tried by the lower court sitting as a jury in a different posture than when the case is tried by a jury. In a non-jury case Rule 1086 specifically provides that we shall review the case upon the evidence (as well as the law) and we must determine whether the lower court was clearly wrong on the evidence in finding a verdict of guilty. In a jury case if the lower court finds upon motion for judgment of acquittal that the evidence is sufficient in law to justify a conviction, it denies the motion, and permits the evidence to go to the jury. On appeal we determine whether the denial of the motion was proper. It is because of this difference in the posture of the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence that we may entertain the issue on appeal in a jury case only upon the denial by the lower court of a motion for judgment of acquittal but we must entertain the issue in a non-jury case when presented on appeal even in the absence of a motion for judgment of acquittal below.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.