Hill v. Hudspeth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Regardless of such fact, however, it may be noted that under the procedure in this state it is not necessary to set forth in the complaint, warrant or information that the accused is charged as a habitual criminal. This court has recognized that there is a conflict of authority upon the question in other jurisdictions but has adopted the rule that the prisoner’s rights are better protected if evidence of prior convictions is not introduced in connection with the trial of the crime with which he is charged. Under our practice when he is charged and tried for a crime, his previous record may not be used to influence the jury to convict him of the charged crime. The rule may have some exceptions but we are not concerned with such exceptions in this case. It follows, under our procedure, that an accused is not entitled to a trial on the question of whether he has been convicted of other felonies on other occasions. The question whether a man is a habitual criminal ihvolves only the severity of the penalty. If the penalty is too severe, the problem is one for the legislature.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rutledge v. Hudspeth

2. ““. . . We may observe again that it is better practice for a court upon accepting a plea of guilty to apprise an accused that he will be sentenced under the habitual criminal act and permit him to show cause, if he can, why such higher penalty should not be imposed but the failure to do so would constitute only a trial irregularity and trial irregularities cannot be corrected or reviewed on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (See G. S. 1935, 60-2213; Franklin v. Westfall, 27 Kan. 614 ; In re White, Petitioner, 50 Kan. 299 , 32 Pac. 36 ; In re Black, Petitioner, 52 Kan. 64 , 34 Pac. 414 ; In re Corum, 62 Kan. 271 , 62 Pac. 661 ; In re Nolan, 68 Kan. 796 , 75 Pac. 1025 ; and In re Bundy, 144 Kan. 64 , 58 P. 2d 80 .)” (pp. 382 and 383.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Plasters v. Hoffman

3. ““Again and again this court has held that a writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed on the uncorroborated and unsupported statements of the petitioner. (See Cochran v. Amrine, 153 Kan. 777 , 113 P. 2d 1048 , and Wooner v. Am rine, 154 Kan. 211 , 117 P. 2d 608 .) . . .” (p. 379.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yurk & Brady v. Brunk