819 So. 2d 558 - Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is a similar standard of review when we must review the weight of the evidence. In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal. As such, if the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, then a new trial is proper”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 856 So. 2d 650 - Anderson v. State

2. “[T]he sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law is viewed and tested in a light most favorable to the State. The credible evidence consistent with [the defendant's] guilt must be accepted as true. The prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. We are authorized to 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 fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 856 So. 2d 650 - Anderson v. State

3. “1. The temporal proximity of the possession to the crime to be inferred; 2. The number or percentage of the fruits of the crime possessed; 3. The nature of the possession in terms of whether there is- an attempt at concealment or any other evidence of guilty knowledge; 4. Whether an explanation is given and whether that explanation is plausible or demonstrably false.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 So. 3d 1021 - Christopher Orlando Hobson v. State of Mississippi