State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 91 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] conviction may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence where the facts are `so clearly interwoven and connected that the finger of guilt is pointed unerringly at the Defendant and the Defendant alone.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rice · State v. Rogers

2. “In response to the Defendant’s assertions that the evidence of the two episodes was irrelevant and inadmissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), the State cites a line of cases, see, e.g., State v. Tumbill, 640 S.W.2d 40, 46-7 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982); and State v. Glebock, 616 S.W.2d 897, 905-906 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981), which hold that violent acts indicating the relationship between the victim of a violent crime and the defendant prior to the commission of the offense are relevant to show defendant’s hostility toward the victim, malice, intent, and a settled purpose to harm the victim. Also, in the present case, the victims, despite the Defendant’s threats to kill them if they did so, had filed charges against the Defendant based on these prior assaults. The evidence of these violent episodes was admitted not to prove the Defendant acted in accord with his character but as part of the proof establishing his motive for the killings. The probative value of this evidence is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Winkler v. Parris · State v. Hall

3. “A jury verdict approved by the trial judge accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflict in favor of the State’s theory. On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable or legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. A verdict against the defendant removes the presumption of innocence and raises a presumption of guilt on appeal, which the defendant has the burden of overcoming. [[Image here]] When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jackson · State v. Sparks