Huff 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. “This Court has consistently recognized that it is the jury's duty to resolve the factual issues, judge the credibility of the witnesses, and determine the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant. Gayler v. State, 957 P.2d 855, 860 (Wyo.1998); Zabel v. State, 765 P.2d 357, 362 (Wyo.1988). A witness may not, therefore, comment on the veracity or truthfulness of another witness. Gayler, 957 P.2d at 860 ; Curl v. State, 898 P.2d 369, 373-74 (Wyo.1995).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lancaster v. State · Abeyta v. State

2. “In deciding whether a check was issued with intent to defraud, you may rely upon those factors listed under (A), (B), or (C) to determine whether Thomas Merchant intended that such checks should not be paid: (A) That at the time of issuance he did not have an account with the drawee (bank); (B) That at the time of the issuance he did not have sufficient funds with the bank upon which such funds were to be drawn and that he failed to pay the check within 5 days after receiving notice of non-payment or dishonor personally given or sent to the address shown on the cheek (C) That when presentment was made in a reasonable time the issuer did not have sufficient funds with the drawee (bank) and he failed to pay the check within 5 days after receiving notice of non-payment or dishonor personally given or sent to the address on the check.”

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

3. “Rule 303. Presumptions in criminal cases. [[Image here]] (c) Instructing the Juwry.-Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused is submitted to the jury, the court shall instruct the jury that it may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but is not required to do so. In addition, if the presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negatives a defense, the court shall instruct the jury that its existence, on all the evidence, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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