Doe v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * The Eagan rule is an important one, and a diligent search of the record is required to ascertain whether it should be applied. Where the rule is applicable, the defendant's version of a homicide must be accepted — even in the face of a jury verdict to the contrary. In [appeals from murder convictions], our duty is neither to substitute our opinion for that of the jury, nor to blindly accept the jury's determination as correct. We are required, in order to sustain the conviction, to find that there is sufficient probative evidence, direct or circumstantial, to prove intent and malice beyond a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leitel v. State · Dangel v. State

2. ““ * * * Where an accused is the sole witness of a transaction charged as a crime, as in the case at bar, his testimony cannot be arbitrarily rejected, and if his credibility has not been impeached, and his testimony is not improbable, and is not inconsistent with the facts and circumstances shown, but is reasonably consistent therewith, then his testimony should be accepted. * * * ” Eagan v. State, supra, 128 P.2d at 226 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leitel v. State · Cutbirth v. State

3. “"The Eagan Rule is, of course, helpful to a defendant only in those circumstances where his explanation remains uncontradicted either directly or by fair inferences from the testimony and evidence. * * Under the facts of this case, we cannot employ the Eagan Rule to negate the jury's finding of intent and malice. * * * * * * "When deciding whether a set of facts call for reversal under the Eagan Rule, we must invoke the concept reannounced in Doe: "`* * * we must accept as true the evidence favorable to the prosecution and give the State the benefit of every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn. * * *' * * * * * * "* * * We cannot, therefore, say, as a matter of law, that appellant's version of the shooting remained unimpeached by other and credible evidence — a condition precedent to a reversal under the Eagan Rule."”

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