State v. Romero’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to warrant the conviction. A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable, to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reason ably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Montplaisir · State v. Friesz

2. “To grant a motion for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, a trial court must find the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of the offenses charged.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Norton · State v. Shick

3. “SELF-DEFENSE (After Provocation) A person is justified in using force upon another to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other person. One is not justified in using force if one causes bodily injury or death to the other person and had intentionally provoked the danger defended against, or has entered into mutual combat with another person or is the initial aggressor, unless resisting force that is clearly excessive in the circumstances. A person’s use of defensive force is justified if, after one withdraws from an encounter and has indicated to the other person that one has done so, the other person nevertheless continues or menaces unlawful action. SELF-DEFENSE (Reasonableness of Accused’s Belief) The Defendant’s conduct is to be judged by what the Defendant in good faith honestly believed and had reasonable grounds to believe was necessary to avoid apprehended death or great bodily injury. LIMITS ON USE' OF EXCESSIVE OR DEADLY FORCE A person is not justified in using more force than is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. Deadly force is justified:. If it is used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others and the force is necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence. The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by retreat or other conduct in”

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