Downs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Itlhe most significant and material evidence of defendant's guilt is his possession of the stolen property. Possession is a strong circumstance tending to show guilt and only slight corroborative evidence of other incul-patory circumstances is required”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. King v. State · Cowell v. State

2. “"* * * No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. * * *"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. State · Scheikofsky v. State

3. ““The defendant urges essentially that guilt cannot be based solely on circumstantial evidence because it means piling up inferences. We know of no such concept representing accepted jurisprudence with respect to circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is many times the only way that an ultimate fact may be shown. Blakely v. State, Wyo.1975, 542 P.2d 857 , explains that circumstantial evidence has standing and stature and is to be measured upon the same basis as direct evidence. It is a chain of proven circumstances indicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant. “We see no proving of an inference from another inference in this case. There may be something offensive about basing an inference on an inference. It is an extremely technical as well as much criticized theory, Annotation, 5 A.L.R.3d 100 , entitled, ‘Modern status of the rules against basing an inference upon an inference or a presumption upon a presumption,’ and has been noted in the jurisprudence of Wyoming but found inapplicable or of at least questionable application in those cases where mentioned. Richey v. State, 1921, 28 Wyo. 117 , 201 P. 154 , reh. denied 205 P. 304 ; Rosen-crance v. State, 1925, 33 Wyo. 360 , 239 P. 952 . Be that as it may, we cannot see its applicability to this case, even if an accepted rule. In the case before us now, the circumstantial facts presented through direct evidence point to only one ultimate inferential fact — guilt. That is distinctively different from pyramiding ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cowell v. State · Teniente v. State