State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is the appellant’s contention that he was not charged with robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or any crime of violence wherein a weapon such as the gun introduced would be instrumental in the commission of the crime. It is therefore argued the probative value of the gun as tending to prove the commission of the crime charged was negligible and far outweighed by the risk of unfair and harmful surprise to the defendant to say nothing of the undue prejudice generated by the introduction of the weapon into evidence. “It is well established that attempts by the accused to conceal or destroy evidence are incriminating circumstances that may be presented to the jury. (State v. Wilson, 108 Kan. 433 , 195 Pac. 618 .) “It has also been held that the demeanor of one charged with crime, at or near the time of its commission, or of his arrest for the same, may always be shown. (State v. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1 , 12 Pac. 318 .) “Here the pistol was the fruit of a search made of the area where a lawful arrest had been effected, and was used to substantiate the evidence presented as to the conduct of the appellant at the time of his arrest. Both the pistol and the evidence of the appellant’s conduct at the scene of the arrest are properly a part of the state’s circumstantial evidence against the appellant. Both are relevant and have a bearing on the element of criminal intent or guilty knowledge. Considering the character of the case and the conduct of the appellant, the trial court did n”

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

2. ““One of the factual issues in this case is whether or not liquor taken in a burglary and larceny was in the possession of the defendant shortly after the commission of the burglary and the larceny. “In this regard you are instructed that the laws of Kansas provide that possession of property taken in the commission of a burglary and larceny shortly after the commission of said burglary and larceny is prima facie evidence that the possessor or possessors committed the burglary and larceny, and throws upon any possessor the burden of explaining his possession. If such possession is unexplained, or if the explanation is not satisfactory, it is of itself sufficient to sustain a conviction of the burglary and larceny.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brown