State v. Polsky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 54 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘In determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a conviction, the appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, resolving all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom in favor of the verdict. State v. Parker, 80 N.M. 551 , 458 P.2d 803 (Ct.App.1969). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate support for.a conclusion. State v. Encee, 79 N.M. 23 , 439 P.2d 240 (Ct.App.1968). The fact that there were conflicts in the evidence does not make the State’s evidence insubstantial. State v. Mora, 81 N.M. 631 , 471 P.2d 201 (Ct.App.1970). The appellate court may not properly substitute its judgment for that of the jury as to credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given the evidence. Gallegos v. Wilkerson, 79 N.M. 549 , 445 P.2d 970 (1968); State v. McAfee, 78 N.M. 108 , 428 P.2d 647 (1967); State v. Tafoya, 80 N.M. 494 , 458 P.2d 98 (Ct.App.1969); Rein v. Dvoracek, 79 N.M. 410 , 444 P.2d 595 (Ct.App.1968).’””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wilson · State v. Rushing

2. ““ * * *. We appreciate a prosecutor is given reasonable lattitude in his closing arguments, and the trial court has wide discretion in controlling the scope of such arguments. State v. Pace, supra [ 80 N.M. 364 , 456 P.2d 197 (1967)]. See also United States v. Lewis, 423 F.2d 457 (8th Cir. 1970); State v. Gonzales, 105 Ariz. 434 , 466 P.2d 388 (1970); State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317 , 176 N.W.2d 607 (1970); Conyers v. Wainwright, 309 F.Supp. 1101 (S.D.Fla. 1970). However, a prosecutor must exercise good faith and reasonable caution to avoid unfairness. This does not mean, however, that the entire burden is on the prosecutor to make certain his remarks may not possibly be given an improper construction. If a defendant is of the opinion remarks by the prosecutor exceed the bounds of propriety, the burden is on him to make objection and call the objectionable matter to the attention of the trial court. State v. Hudson, supra [ 78 N.M. 228 , 430 P.2d 386 (1967)]. Defendant failed to do so here, and, thus, failed to preserve the error, if error was committed. * * * ””

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

3. “The responsibility of an appellate court is to review the trial proceedings, consistent with principles of appellate review, for the purpose of making sure the accused had a fair trial, consistent with applicable principles of law and rules of procedure. In making this review, the appellate court must affirm a conviction unless the record reveals a very real possibility of a miscarriage of justice.”

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