State v. Sieg’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. “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime charged. It also requires fact-finders to rationally apply the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to the facts in evidence. So when a criminal defendant challenges the evidence's sufficiency, a reviewing court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' 'All that a defendant is entitled to on a sufficiency challenge is for the court to make a "legal”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reynolds · State v. Pepper

2. “determination whether the evidence was strong enough to reach a jury at all.' [Citations omitted.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reynolds · State v. Pepper

3. “60-455 is often referred to as prior bad acts, but that's just kind of a shorthand way of referring to it. There is nothing in the statute that says they have to occur prior to the charged crime. Actually, the statute says that evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on some specific occasion, and so I did note that the charged crimes are several years ago, 2012, 2013, I don't have the Complaint right in front of me, but they are several years old, whereas the alleged bad acts are after that. 12 "But regarding [defense counsel's] argument that these alleged bad acts were not prior bad acts, that's not required by statute. "Also, the statute is fairly clear that if it is a non-sex crime, then pretty tight on not allowing this type of evidence. However, for a sex crime, it's pretty broad on allowing this type of evidence. For a sex offense, then the prior acts or the other evidence of other crimes or other civil wrongs are admissible, if they go to propensity or any other matter which is relative and probative. "My finding is that the request contained in the State's motion is both relevant and probative to the charged crimes. So the information that is contained within the motion is allowed under 60-455 in this particular case.”

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