Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A motion for a directed verdict and a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (¶ 16) (Miss.2005). The critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed.” Id. (quoting Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886, 889 (Miss.1968)). All evidence will be reviewed in the light most favorable to the State, and all credible evidence consistent with the defendant’s guilt will be accepted as true. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993). “Reversal can only occur when evidence of one or more of the elements of the charged offense is such that ‘reasonable and fair minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.’ ” Stewart v. State, 909 So.2d 52, 56 (¶ 16) (Miss.2005). In contrast, a motion for a new trial challenges the weight of the evidence. Ivy v. State, 949 So.2d 748, 753 (¶ 21) (Miss.2007) (citing Sheffield v. State, 749 So.2d 123, 127 (¶ 16) (Miss.1999)). The reviewing court “will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush, 895 So.2d at 844 (¶ 18). The evidence will be “weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. “Any factual disputes are properly resolved by the jury and do not mandate a new trial.” Moor”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Santos v. State

2. “Id. at 1289-90 (¶ 22). ¶ 28. We do not find that the inconsistencies Kimble alleges merit reversal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the jury could have found Kimble guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we find the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. B. Weight ¶ 29. In reviewing the weight of the evidence in favor of the verdict,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rickarius Kimble v. State of Mississippi

3. “the jury is the final arbiter of a witness's credibility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rickarius Kimble v. State of Mississippi