State v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““... First, the facts in evidence and all favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the state and all evidence and inferences to the contrary must be disregarded. (Citations) Second, when the state’s case rests upon circumstantial evidence, ‘the facts and circumstances must be consistent with each other and with the hypothesis of defendant’s guilt, and they must be inconsistent with his innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. (Citations) Third, the prevailing circumstantial evidence rule, supra, is realistically tempered in its application since ‘[i]n a case involving circumstantial evidence the circumstances need not be absolutely conclusive of guilty, and they need not demonstrate impossibility of innocence[;] ... the mere existence of other possible hypothesis is not enough to remove the case from the jury. (Citation)””

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

2. “First, the facts in evidence and all favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the state and all evidence and inferences to the contrary must be disregarded. Second, ... the facts and circumstances must be consistent with each other and with the hypothesis of defendant’s guilt, and they must be inconsistent with his innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. Third, the prevailing circumstantial evidence rule, supra, is realistically tempered in its application since in a case involving circumstantial evidence the circumstances need not be absolutely conclusive of guilt, and they need not demonstrate impossibility of innocence; ... the mere existence of other possible hypotheses is not enough to remove the case from the jury.”

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

3. “[T]he requirement of “affirmative participation” may be satisfied by inference and the evidence need not directly place the defendant in the act of committing the crime for which he is charged.... It has also been held that presence, companionship and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.... Evidence fairly showing any form of affirmative participation in a crime is sufficient to support a conviction.”

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