Cowell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Introductory to a discussion of inferences in Downs v. State, [ 581 P.2d 610 (Wyo.1978), the court said: "The defendant urges essentially that guilt cannot be based solely on cireum-stantial evidence because it means piling up inferences. We know of no such concept representing accepted jurisprudence with respect to cireumstantial evidence. Cireamstantial evidence is many times the only way that an ultimate fact may be shown. Blakely v. State, Wyo. 1975, 542 P.2d 857 , explains that cireum-stantial evidence has standing and stature and is to be measured upon the same basis as direct evidence. It is a chain of proven cireumstances indicating the guilt .or innocence of the defendant. "We see no proving of an inference from another inference in this case. There may be something offensive - about basing an inference on an inference. It is an extremely technical as well as much criticized theory, Annotation, 5 A.L.R.8d 100, entitled, 'Modern status of the rules against basing an inference upon an inference or a presumption upon a presumption,' and has been noted in the jurisprudence of Wyoming but found inapplicable or of at least questionable application in those cases where mentioned. Richey v. State, 1921, 28 Wyo. 117 , 201 P. 154 , reh. denied, 28 Wyo. 117 , 205 P. 304 ; Rosencrance v. State, 1925, 33 Wyo. 360 , 239 P. 952 . Be that as it may, we cannot see its applicability to this case, even if an accepted rule. In the case before us now, the cireum-stantial facts presented ”

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

2. “The most significant and material evidence of defendant’s guilt is his possession of the stolen property. Possession is a strong circumstance tending to show guilt and only slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances is required. Orcutt v. State, Wyo.1961, 366 P.2d 690, 692-3 . While it may be otherwise elsewhere, in this jurisdiction, possession alone is insufficient in itself to convict. Orcutt, supra; State v. Costin, 1934, 46 Wyo. 463, 469 , 28 P.2d 782, 783 .”

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