531 So. 2d 697 - Robinette v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The standard for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a case such as this one was aptly set out in Dolvin v. State , 391 So.2d 133 (Ala. 1980): " ' "In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude. United States v. Black , 497 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. McGlamory , 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971); Clark v. United States , 293 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1961). " ' "[W]e must keep in mind that the test to be applied is not simply whether in the opinion of the trial judge or the appellate court the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt; but rather whether the jury might so conclude. Harper v. United States , 405 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1969); Roberts v. United States , 416 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1969). The procedure for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence has been aptly set out in Odom v. United States , 377 F.2d 853 , 855 (5th Cir. 1967): " ' " 'Our obligation, therefore, is to examine the record to determine whether there is any theory of the evidence from which the jury might have excluded every hypothesis except guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rua v. Unit”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barger v. State · Toney v. State

2. “391 So.2d at 137-38 , quoting Cumbo v. State , 368 So.2d 871 , 874 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), cert. denied, Ex parte Cumbo , 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barger v. State · Lundy v. State

3. “"[T]he evidence showed that Price was found in a 'drug den.' He answered the door two minutes after the police knocked on it; he lied to the police by telling them that no one else was present in the house; and he had $5,000 on his person. We think that the jury could have reasonably inferred that Price was guilty of possession under these facts. The Court of Criminal Appeals took the view that the evidence could be reasonably explained under a theory consistent with Price's innocence. In so doing, the court substituted its decision for that of the jury. The jury, by finding Price guilty of the offense charged, was obviously satisfied that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. It was the jury's call." 531 So.2d at 699 (emphasis in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 533 So. 2d 701 - Molina v. State