Nathan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n a circumstantial evidence case the State is not required to prove to a moral certainty that the circumstances present actually exclude every hypothesis that the criminal act may have been committed by another person; it must only exclude every reasonable hypothesis raised by the evidence that would tend to exculpate the accused ... it is enough that the conclusion of guilt is warranted by the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances. If the evidence presents such a reasonable hypothesis and the State does not disprove it, then the accused has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Addkison v. State · Joslin v. State

2. ““In ascertaining whether the guilt of the accused has been established to a moral certainty, the appellate court will review the evidence in light of the presumption that the accused is innocent. The court will not presume any acts against the accused that are not shown to have been committed by him. Furthermore, a conviction will not be sustained on appeal if the evidence does not sufficiently establish all material elements of the offense charged.” Ysasaga v. State, supra; Flores v. State, supra; Nathan v. State, 611 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Russell v. State · Matson v. State

3. ““(1) The deceased, a man of regular habits who was planning a trip to Louisiana the next day, left his home on the morning of October 6, 1972, to collect a debt or debts. He usually carried $200.00 to $300.00 or more dollars in cash. He never returned home. (2) The deceased indicated that morning to the witness Ford he intended to see the appellant about a debt due him. (3) The deceased was placed at the Sunlight Baptist Church on that date inquiring about the appellant. (4) The deceased was seen leaving the area of the church with the appellant in his car on Cedar Street about 10 a.m. on October 6, 1972. This was the last time he was seen alive. (5) The appellant called his place of employment at 2:45 p.m. on the date in question and said he could not drive the afternoon school bus. (6) When the deceased did not return home at 8 p.m. on October 6, 1972, a search led to the appellant, who took relatives to the Sunlight Baptist Church where he claimed he had last seen the appellant working on his car. The car was found there and was in working order. Appellant was described by witnesses as being nervous and acting strange and attempting to lead them on ‘wild goose chases.’ (7) Leroy Broussard testified that while searching for his uncle with the appellant the next morning (October 7, 1972) the appellant had displayed a pistol and stat ed a spot on the back of his car was rabbit blood. Appellant also told police officers the spot was rabbit blood. When the car was turned over t”

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