Hicks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 2003
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Patterson v. State · Alfaro v. State · Harris v. State · Pritchard v. State · Bryant 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“You are the only judges of the evidence, the weight and believability, or "credibility", of the testimony of the witnesses. In considering the testimony of a witness, you may take into account his or her ability and opportunity to observe, the witness's memory, manner and conduct while testifying; and any interest the witness may have in this case; any bias the witness may have for or against any party to this suit, any relationship with other witnesses or interested parties; and the reasonableness of the witness' testimony when viewed with all of the other evidence in the case. L * * * * L In weighing the testimony to determine what or whom you will believe, you should use your own knowledge, experience and common sense gained from day to day living. You may find that your determination of the truth is not controlled by the number of witnesses who testify to a particular fact, or on one side or the other, or the quantity of evidence on a particular point. You should give the greatest weight to that evidence which convinces you most strongly of its truthfulness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Woods v. State“In clothing those charged with crime with the presumption of innocence, the law does not contemplate that thereby the guilty should be shielded from merit ed punishment. Its object is to protect the innocent, so far as human agencies can, from the effects of unjust verdicts. The effect of this presumption is to withhold punishment from one charged with a crime until all the facts necessary to constitute the offense have been proved to that degree of certainty fixed by law as being beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State has failed to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he should not be convicted, but if a defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he should not be acquitted erroneously.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. State“So long as the jury was instructed on the elements of the offense charged, the State's burden of proof throughout the case, the presumption of the defendant's innocence, the credibility of the witnesses, and the manner in which the jury was to deliberate to reach a verdict, the instruction about which appellant complains is proper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brownlee v. State
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.