817 So. 2d 515 - Webster v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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. “Our concern here is whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to sustain a finding adverse to [the defendant] on each element of the offense of murder. In the present context we must, with respect to each element of the offense, consider all of the evidence-not just the evidence which supports the case for the prosecution-in the light most favorable to the verdict. The credible evidence which is consistent with the guilt must be accepted as true. The prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility to be accorded the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. We may reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fairminded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 878 So. 2d 913 - Walker v. State · 865 So. 2d 1111 - Schuck v. State

2. “Dr. Cloy testified that the girl's hymen was not intact which could indicate sexual activity. The girl stated that Walker threatened her. Because of this threat, the girl denied having sex with Walker to her mother and told the doctor that she had sex with her brother, not Walker. Thus, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict in this case, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for JNOV. B. New Trial Motion Standard or Review ¶ 61.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 878 So. 2d 913 - Walker v. State · 865 So. 2d 1111 - Schuck v. State

3. “[u]sually, evidence of another crime is not admissible. However, this Court has held that evidence of a prior crime or act may be admitted to show identity, knowledge, intent, or motive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 878 So. 2d 913 - Walker v. State