Hardesty v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he deduction of guilt drawn from a defendant’s recent and unexplained possession of stolen property is merely a circumstance of guilt and is not conclusive. Ellard, [v. State] supra [ 509 S.W.2d 622 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) ]; Williams, [v. State ] supra [ 631 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) ]. Once the permissible inference arises, the sufficiency of the evidence must still be examined according to applicable direct or circumstantial evidence standards of appellate review since the inference is not conclusive. Hardesty, supra at 77 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roberts v. State · Louis v. State

2. “Stated simply, a true presumption is a rule of law laid down by the courts which attaches to facts certain procedural consequences, such as the shift in the burden of evidence production: when fact A is established, the factfinder must find fact B, unless the opponent introduces evidence from which the factfinder could reasonably find that B did not exist. Distantly related is the term “permissible inference” which is a deduction from the facts which the factfinder may draw from the circumstances of the case without the aid of any rule of law, but is not obligated to do so.”

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

3. “[o]nce the permissible inference arises, sufficiency of the evidence must still be examined according to applicable evidentiary standards of appellate review since the inference is not conclusive.”

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