Baker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence presented.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Neil C. Albee v. State of Indiana · Jeremy Schath v. State of Indiana

2. “Burglary is the breaking and entering of the building or structure of another person with the intent to commit a specific felony therein. Ind.Code § 35—43—2-1; Gilliam v. State, 508 N.E.2d 1270, 1270 (Ind.1987); Yeagley v. State, 467 N.E.2d 730, 736 (Ind.1984) “Burglars rarely announce their intentions at the moment of entry,” Gilliam, 508 N.E.2d at 1271 , and indeed many times there is no one around to hear them even if they were to do so. Hence, a burglar’s intent to commit a specific felony at the time of the breaking and entering “may be inferred from the circumstances.” Id.; see also Hampton v. State, 961 N.E.2d 480, 487 (Ind.2012) (“[Tjhe mens rea element for a criminal offense is almost inevitably, absent a defendant’s confession or admission, a matter of circumstantial proof.”); Kondrup v. State, 250 Ind. 320, 323-24 , 235 N.E.2d 703, 705 (1968) (“[Tjhe intent to commit a felony may be inferred from the circumstances which legitimately permit it.”). “Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction.” Kidd [v. State ], 530 N.E.2d [287, 287 (Ind.1988)]; accord Cash v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1023, 1025 (Ind.1990) (“A conviction for burglary may be sustained by circumstantial evidence alone.”). Evidence of intent “need not be insurmountable,” Gilliam, 508 N.E.2d at 1271 , but there must be a “specific fact that provides a solid basis to support a reasonable inference that the defendant had the specific intent to commit a felony[.j” Freshwater [v. St”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas W. Oster, II v. State of Indiana

3. “A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person: (1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or (2) by putting any person in fear; commits robbery, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a ... Class A felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Charles Stephenson v. State of Indiana