8 Md. App. 462 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “By a special verdict the jury found that the appellant was sane at the time of the commission of the crimes. See Mahoney v. State, 8 Md.App. 44 [ 257 A.2d 462 (1969) ]; Turner v. State, 5 Md.App. 584 [ 248 A.2d 801 (1968) ]. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence on this issue comes before us on appellate review as does the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty in a jury trial, namely on the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence. Such motion was here made and denied. The test to be applied by us in determining the sufficiency vel non of the evidence to sustain a verdict of sanity is the same as the test applied in our determination whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. The evidence must show directly the fact to be proved or support a rational inference of the fact. The fact must be shown or the inference supported beyond a reasonable doubt. Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 452-460 [ 247 A.2d 731 (1968) ]. But the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters for the jury. Shelton v. State, 198 Md. 405 [ 84 A.2d 76 (1951) ]; Graef v. State, 1 Md.App. 161 [ 228 A.2d 480 (1967) ]. (Footnote omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curtis v. State

2. ““The information requested was in nowise relevant or material to the jury’s function of determining the sanity vel non of appellant. Such determination could only be properly made by them on the evidence pertinent thereto before them; the disposition to be made by the court in the event that the jury determined appellant was insane could play no part therein. In such event the disposition of appellant was in the discretion of the court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 75 Md. App. 560 - Erdman v. State