92 Md. App. 508 - Hebron v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2017
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Jenks · Holland v. United States · Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan · Hendrick v. Avent · People v. Bennett
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘coupled with the loud bang ... could lead a rational trier of fact reasonably to find that [the accused] used his body to batter the door with such force as to defeat the lock and open the door. From that, the trier of fact could further reasonably infer that, with the application of that kind of body pressure to the door, some part of [the accused’s] body must necessarily have crossed the threshold when the door opened.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hebron v. State · Deese v. State““The law makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. [[Image here]] “To prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt it is not necessary that every conceivable miraculous coincidence consistent with innocence be negatived.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Relying principally on West v. State, 312 Md. 197 , 539 A.2d 231 (1988), appellant claims that the refusal to give that additional instruction constitutes reversible error. We do not agree. The principle at issue is a simple one. As stated in Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 536-37 , 573 A.2d 831 (1990): "A conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence alone.... To ensure that the trier of fact bases a finding of guilt on the appropriate degree of certainty, we have long held that a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances, taken together, are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” The validity of that principle is not in question; at issue is whether it is the proper subject of a jury instruction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.