Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"`"`[W]e must keep in mind that the test to be applied is not simply whether in the opinion of the trial judge or the appellate court the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt; but rather whether the jury might so conclude. Harper v. United States , 405 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1969); Roberts v. United States , 416 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1969). The procedure for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence has been aptly set out in Odom v. United States , 377 F.2d 853 , 855 (5th Cir. 1967): "`"`"`"Our obligation, therefore, is to examine the record to determine whether there is any, theory of the evidence from which the jury might have excluded every hypothesis except guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rua v. United States , 5 Cir. 1963, 321 F.2d 140 ; Riggs v. United States , 5 Cir. 1960, 280 F.2d 949 . . . The sanctity of the jury function demands that this court never substitute its decision for that of the jury. Our obligation is to examine the welter of evidence to determine if there exists any reasonable theory from which the jury might have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged. McGlammory , 441 F.2d at 135 and 136.'"'"' "`"` 391 So.2d at 137-38 , quoting Cumbo v. State , 368 So.2d 871 , 871 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), cert. denied, Ex parte Cumbo , 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979).' Robinette v. State , 531 So.2d 697 , 698-99 (Ala. 1988). "`"`In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, this Court”

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