14 canonical passages across 10 cases, quoted by 340 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Cunningham.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Cunningham Anchor | green | “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” | 65 |
| 2 | State v. Montoya | green | “the test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” | 52 |
| 3 | State v. Cunningham | green | “views the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” | 49 |
| 4 | State v. Cunningham | green | “in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” | 33 |
| 5 | State v. Duran | green | “the test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” | 27 |
| 6 | State v. Holt | green | “the jury instructions become the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured.” | 26 |
| 7 | State v. Cabezuela | green | “the test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” | 18 |
| 8 | State v. Garcia | green | “whether the evidence, so viewed, supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 18 |
| 9 | State v. Riley | green | “the test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” | 15 |
| 10 | State v. Gipson | green | “we do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict.” | 10 |
| 11 | State v. Gipson | green | “we do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict.” | 9 |
| 12 | State v. Duran | green | “contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal because the jury is free to reject defendant's version of the facts.” | 7 |
| 13 | State v. Barrera | green | “we will affirm a conviction if supported by a fair inference from the evidence regardless of whether a contrary inference might support a contrary result.” | 6 |
| 14 | State v. DeGraff | green | “the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment, enforced against the states by the fourteenth amendment, protects defendants from receiving multiple punishments for the same offense.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.