Sutherland v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2019
13 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 Bloomquist v. State · State v. Luna · McCabe v. R.A. Manning Construction Co. · Harris v. State · Shaffer v. State
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[tlhe most significant 'and material evidence of defendant's guilt is his possession of the stolen property. Possession is a strong cireumstance tending to show guilt and only slight corroborative evidence of other inculpatory circumstances is required”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person is guilty of burglary if, without authority, he enters or remains in a ... vehicle ... with intent to commit larceny or a felony therein.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This Court assesses whether all the evidence which was presented is adequate enough to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. We leave out of consideration entirely the evidence presented by the unsuccessful party which conflicts with the successful party’s evidence, and we afford every favorable inference to the successful party’s evidence which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from that evidence. We have consistently held that, even though it is possible to draw other inferences from the evidence which has been presented, the jury has the responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury when we are applying this rule; our only duty is to ¡determine whether a qhorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huff v. State
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.