Zuliani v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 205 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 207 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he statement is trustworthy because it represents an event speaking through the person rather than the person speaking about the event. In determining whether a hearsay statement is admissible as an excited utterance, the court may consider the time elapsed and whether the statement was in response to a question. However, it is not dispositive that the statement is an answer to a question or that it was separated by a period of time from the startling event; these are simply factors to consider in determining whether the statement is admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception. The critical determination is “whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the event” or condition at the time of the statement. Stated differently, a reviewing court must determine whether the statement was made “under such circumstances as would reasonably show that it resulted from impulse rather than reason and reflection.” (Citations omitted)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gary Lee Avant v. State · Lane v. State

2. “[T]he complete and correct standard a reviewing court must follow to conduct a Clewis factual sufficiency review of the elements of a criminal offense asks whether a neutral review of all the evidence, both for and against the finding, demonstrates that the proof of guilt is so obviously weak as to undermine confidence in the jury’s determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Adoption of this complete standard allows us to remain true to one of the stated goals of Clewis , harmonization, when appropriate, of civil and criminal jurisprudence, and it recognizes the State’s burden at a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCelvey v. State · Ketchum v. State

3. “[t]he burden of persuasion is not one that requires the production of evidence, rather it requires only that the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. When a [factfinder] finds the defendant guilty, there is an implicit finding against the defensive theory.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Braughton, Christopher Ernest · In Re AG