Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 588 So. 2d 771 - State v. Harrison

588 So. 2d 771 - State v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 1999
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Cage v. Louisiana · Unimet Corp. v. United Steelworkers · 484 So. 2d 122 - State v. Fraser

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

  1. “If you entertain a reasonable doubt as to any fact or element necessary to constitute the defendant's guilt, it is your duty to give him the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict of not guilty. Even where the evidence demonstrates a probability of guilt, it does not establish such guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit the accused. This doubt, however, must be a reasonable one; that is one that is founded upon a real tangible substantial basis and not upon mere caprice and conjecture. It must be such a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your mind by reasons of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence or lack thereof. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt. It is an actual substantial doubt. "It is a doubt that a reasonable man can seriously entertain. What is required is not an absolute or mathematical certainty, but a moral certainty." State v. Cage, 554 So.2d 39, 41 (La.1989).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If you entertain a reasonable doubt as to any fact or element necessary to constitute the guilt of the defendant, it is your sworn duty to give him the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict of not guilty. But this doubt must be a reasonable one, that is, one founded upon a real, tangible and substantial basis and not upon a mere caprice, fancy or conjecture. It must be such a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty raised in your mind by reason of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence. Likewise, if the State has proved the guilt of the defendant to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt you should return a verdict of guilty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.