State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"However, the last phrase of this rule does not mean that the evidence must be such as to exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence. Rather, it requires only the exclusion of reasonable hypotheses of innocence."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hoeye · State v. Rober

2. ““To warrant a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, such facts and circumstances must be shown as are consistent with each other and with the guilt of the party charged, and such as cannot by any reasonable theory be true and the party charged be innocent. (citations omitted) However, the last phrase of this rule does not mean that the evidence must be such as to exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence; rather, it requires only the exclusion of reasonable hypothesis of innocence, (citation omitted) As the court said in the Thomas opinion [State v. Thomas, 1960, 78 S.D. 568 , 105 N.W.2d 549 ] we have examined the record with care and are compelled to the conclusion that under this record and in conformity with the rule announced, the jury could reasonably conclude defendants were guilty of the offenses charged. That was a function for a jury to determine in compliance with the dictates of State v. Bates, [ 76 S.D. 23 , 71 N.W.2d 641 ], supra, where the court, quoting from a text and former opinion, stated: ‘ “where the facts offered in evidence by the plaintiff, if true, make out a prima facie case, the jury, and not the judge, ought to pass upon them.” ’ ””

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