State v. Graven’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * [I]t is axiomatic that criminal conduct may be and, in many instances, can only be proved by circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence relied upon to prove an essential element of the crime must be irreconcilable with any reasonable theory of the accused’s innocence in order to support a finding of guilty. State v. Kulig (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 157 . “Thus, where circumstantial evidence is relied upon to prove elements of the crime, as in the cause sub judice, the jury must find it to be of such a conclusive and persuasive force that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This determination of the reasonableness of a hypothesis as a jury prerogative was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Holland v. United States (1954), 348 U.S. 121 , wherein the court stated, at 140: “ ‘Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. * * *’ “Similarly, language in State v. Sheppard, supra ( 165 Ohio St. 293 ), likewise implies that the determination of reasonableness includes a determination ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 Ohio App. 3d 32 - State v. Cousin · State v. Miller

2. “(A) `Deception' means knowingly deceiving another or causing another to be deceived, by any false or misleading representation, by withholding information, by preventing another from acquiring information, or by any other conduct, act, or omission which creates, confirms, or perpetuates a false impression in another, including a false impression as to law, value, state of mind, or other objective or subjective fact.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 47 Ohio App. 3d 145 - State v. Vrona · State v. Snyder, 2008-Ca-25 (12-18-2008)

3. “'Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon in the proof of any element of a crime, and the jury finds that there is a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, after considering all the evidence, it is its duty to acquit ***.' ***”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 Ohio App. 3d 32 - State v. Cousin · State v. McAdams