State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2015
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sandstrom v. Montana · Francis v. Franklin · State v. Booker · State v. McCardell · State v. Lamm
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.
“It is fundamental that the State carries the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of an offense, including the absence of an affirmative defense once the defense is put into issue.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Layman · State v. Buck“[w]here the only evidence presented against the defendant is circumstantial, the evidence supporting a conviction must preclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This is because the existence of a reasonable hypothesis of innocence necessarily raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Layman · State v. Gerber“Lack of such evidence may well make it impossible for the State to fulfill its duty to establish — beyond a reasonable doubt — the necessary nexus between a defendant and the contraband; any significant deficiency in evidence establishing the nexus almost always leaves room for those “reasonable hypotheses of innocence” which “necessarily raise[] a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.