State v. Bayles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 26 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our review of a substantial evidence claim is on error. We are bound by the jury verdict unless the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. In making this determination, we must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. We accept all legitimate inferences that may fairly and reasonably be deducted from the evidence. Evidence is substantial if it could convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative. Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, must however do more than create speculation, suspicion or conjecture.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown · State v. Sanborn

2. “First, it is well established that “determinations of credibility are for the jury, and not for witnesses.” Consequently, questions that ask a defendant to comment on another witnesses] veracity invade the province of the jury. Moreover, “[a]s a general rule, [such] questions have no probative value and are improper and argumentative because they do nothing to assist, the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.” Second, questions of this sort also create the risk that the jury may conclude that, in order to acquit the defendant, it must find that the witness has lied. This risk is especially acute when the witness is a government agent in a criminal case. A witnesses] testimony, however, “can be unconvincing or wholly or partially incorrect for a number of reasons without any deliberate misrepresentation being involved[,]” such as “misrecollection, failure of recollection or other innocent reason.” Similarly, courts have long admonished prosecutors to avoid statements to the effect that if the defendant is innocent, the jury must conclude that witnesses have lied. The reason for this restriction is that “[t]his form of argument ... involves a distortion of the government’s burden of proof.” Moreover, like the problem inherent in asking a defendant to comment on the veracity of another witness, such arguments preclude the possibility that the witness’ testimony conflicts with that of the def”

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

3. “constitute substantive evidence of the facts asserted but are not conclusive evidence of those facts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Iowa v. Christopher Yenger