State v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In considering claims of insufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases, appellate review is limited to determining if the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to have found the person charged with the crime guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 997 , 114 S.Ct. 562 , 126 L.Ed.2d 462 (1993). This court accepts as true all evidence favorable to the state, including favorable inferences drawn from the evidence and disregards evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo. banc 1989).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Robinson · State v. Loveall

2. “Comes now Albert Hudson, movant herein, pro se, and make [sic] application to this court for postconviction remedy to permit movant to obtain DNA testing under civil procedure 547.035 V.A.M.S. to secure relief. 1. Movant is confined in the Missouri Department of Correction at Potosí Correctional Center, 11593 State Highway O, Mineral Point, Missouri 63660. 2. Following an [sic] conviction by jury trial of burglary in the first degree § 569.160, RSMO 1994, [sic] and attempt [sic] forcible rape, § 566.030, RSMO 1994, obtain [sic] in the Circuit Court of Scott County movant was sentence [sic] as a prior offender to fifteen years and a consecutive twenty-five years term imprisonment. 3.Movant now petition [sic] the trial court under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 547.035 and section 547.037 asserting DNA testing of hair samples taken in relation to the crime will demonstrate he is innocent of the crime inwhich [sic] movant was convicted.”

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

3. “'It is particularly important that where an inadequate foundation has been laid for admission of evidence that the objection made be specific as such foundation deficiencies can frequently be remedied, We will not review the contention of inadequate foundation raised for the first time on appeal”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Donald Earl Young v. State