Hankins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 152 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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Rather than aiding jurors in applying the reasonable doubt standard, an additional charge on circumstantial evidence focusing on the `reasonable hypothesis' theory serves only to distract jurors from examining the proper standard of proof as the primary focus of their deliberations." ( Hankins v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1981), 646 S.W.2d 191, 199 (opinion on rehearing).)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Long v. State · Geesa v. State

2. “In order to warrant a conviction of a crime on circumstantial evidence, each fact necessary to the conclusion sought to be established must be proved by competent evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt; all the facts (that is, the facts necessary to the conclusion) must be consistent with each other and, taken together, must be of a conclusive nature, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion and producing, in effect, a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused, and no other person, committed the offense charged. But in such cases it is not sufficient that the circumstances coincide with, account for, and therefore render probable the guilt of the defendant. They must exclude, to a moral certainty, every other reasonable hypothesis except the defendant’s guilt; and unless they do so, beyond a reasonable doubt, you will find the defendant not guilty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Geesa v. State · 269 F. Supp. 2d 784 - Reed v. Cockrell

3. ““Circumstantial evidence in this respect is intrinsically no different from testimonial evidence. Admittedly, circumstantial evidence may in some cases point to a wholly incorrect result. Yet this is equally true of testimonial evidence. In both instances, a jury is asked to weigh the chances that the evidence correctly points to guilt against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inference. In both, the jury must use its experience with people and events in weighing the probabilities. If the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more.” Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 , 75 S.Ct. 127 , 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954).”

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