State v. Cuevas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 60 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the act of killing another is proved, malice aforethought shall be presumed, and the burden shall rest upon the party who committed the killing to show that it did not exist, or a legal justification or extenuation therefor.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Santiago · State v. Duffy

2. “the burden is always upon the prosecution to establish every element of [a] crime by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, never upon the accused to disprove the existence of any necessary element.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Austin · State v. Slavik.

3. “Under the language of the statute, the burden imposed upon the accused is not merely a burden of going forward with the evidence or of raising a reasonable doubt, but is a burden of persuasion of the nonexistence of an essential element of the crime.... [[Image here]] We hold that the statute is invalid. Under our legal system, the burden is always upon the prosecution to establish every element of crime by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, never upon the accused to disprove the existence of any necessary element. 7 Thus, it is stated in Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 487 [ 16 S.Ct. 353, 358 , 40 L.Ed. 499 ] ... (1895), that “the burden of proof, as those words are understood in criminal law, is never upon the accused to establish his innocence, or to disprove the facts necessary to establish the crime for which he is indicted. It is on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial, and applies to every element necessary to constitute the crime.” A similar statement appears in Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 89 [ 69 S.Ct. 1447, 1450 , 93 L.Ed. 1826 ] ... (1949). [[Image here]] The right of an accused to be convicted only upon proof by the prosecution of all of the elements of the crime charged against him beyond a reasonable doubt is a constitutionally protected right. •It is stated in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 [ 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 ] ... (1970): “Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonab”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pone