Love v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a sole witness presents inherently improbable testimony and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence, a defendant's conviction may be reversed. This is appropriate only where the court has confronted inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of incredible dubiosity. Application of this rule is rare and the standard to be applied is whether the testimony is so incredibly dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.”

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. D.G. v. State · Fajardo v. State

2. “[wlithin the narrow limits of the "incredible dubiosity' rule, a court may impinge upon a jury's function to judge the credibility of a witness”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fancher v. State · 2012 UT App 227 - State v. Moore

3. “Indiana Code § 35-34-l-2(a)(5) requires that an information “[state] the date of the offense with sufficient particularity to show that the offense was committed within the period of limitations applicable to that offense.” The State must also “[state] the time of the offense as definitely as can be done if time is of the essence of the offense.” Id. § 35-34-1-2(a)(6)[.] Where time is not of the essence of the offense, however, it is well established that “the State is not confined to proving the commission on the date alleged in the affidavit or indictment, but may prove the commission at any time within the statutory period of limitations.” See Herman v. State, 247 Ind. 7, 17 , 210 N.E.2d 249, 255 (1965) (“[W]here time is not of the essence of the offense, under an allegation of a specific date, the offense may ordinarily be proved as having occurred at any date preceding the filing of the affidavit or indictment which is within the statute of limitations.”); Quillen v. State, 271 Ind. 251, 252 , 391 N.E.2d 817, 818 (1979) (citing Stallings v. State, 232 Ind. 646 , 114 N.E.2d 771 (1953)).”

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