672 So. 2d 237 - State v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A jury charge must be considered as a whole, and particular expressions in a charge must be construed in context of the entire charge. A conviction will not be reversed on the ground of an erroneous charge unless the disputed portion, when considered in connection with the remainder of the charge, is erroneous and prejudicial. The standard to be used when considering an allegedly improper jury instruction is whether there is reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in an unconstitutional manner. State v. Smith, 91-0749 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 398 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 731 So. 2d 389 - State v. Jones · 757 So. 2d 879 - State v. Spain

2. “The Jackson standard applies to both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence consists of testimony from a witness who actually saw or heard an occurrence, proof of the existence of which is at issue. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. State v. Lilly, 468 So.2d 1154 (La.1985); State v. Turner, 591 So.2d 391 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991), writ denied, 597 So.2d 1027 (1992). When the direct evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstances established by that evidence must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of every essential element of a crime. State v. Stokes, 26,003 (La.App. 2d Cir. 6/22/94), 639 So.2d 395 . For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypotheses of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438.”

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

3. “When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of ... armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, [or] simple robbery ... even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.”

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