State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The testimonies of Remedies and Martinez, and Defendant’s own statements, combined with the medical testimony, overwhelmingly narrow the window- of time during which the victim’s injuries could have occurred. It is clear from the evidence recounted above that the little girl’s injuries had to have been inflicted immediately before she became symptomatic. The testimony of Martinez and Defendant’s own statement show that he is the only person who was in a position to have inflicted those injuries. Martinez was in the bathroom at the relevant time, and was apparently quite ill. The record is not clear regarding the whereabouts and activities of the victim’s older brother, Tristine, after the family entered the house. However, since Defendant admitted in his statement that the victim was still able to get up and walk that last time he entered her room, any theory that the boy could have inflicted the injuries is negated. Further, Defendant told police that shortly before re-entering the children’s bedroom to help the victim with her jacket, he saw Tristine and instructed the boy to separate the laundry. The Defendant appears to concede that Tris-tine knows nothing about the crime. Thus, we find the trial evidence was sufficient to exclude any reasonable hypothesis that someone other than Defendant inflicted the fatal injuries.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 So. 3d 1152 - State v. Julien

2. “Circumstantial evidence consists of the proof of 'collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. State v. Guillory, 670 So.2d at 304, citing State v. Donahue, 572 So.2d 255 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990). The circumstantial evidence rule does not require the State to exclude every possible theory of innocence, but only the reasonable hypotheses of innocence. State v. Lilly, 468 So.2d 1154 (La.1985). |1sIn circumstantial evidence cases, this court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by a defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events. Rather, this court, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, determines whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). State v. Davis, 92-1623 (La.5/23/94); 637 So.2d 1012 , certiorari denied, 513 U.S. 975 , 115 S.Ct. 450 , 130 L.Ed.2d 359 (1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 So. 3d 1152 - State v. Julien

3. “accord with the common understanding of those terms. Our survey of current statutes has not revealed a clear statutory correlation between the terms”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 496 - State Ex Rel. Cd