State v. Childs’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 81 Ill. 2d 571 - People v. Rogers (1980), State v. Lumley (1999)
69 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co. · LundBerg v. Bannan · United States v. Stromberg · Basoff v. State · Judy v. State
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We specifically condemn the tactics often employed by overzealous witnesses of injecting clearly incompetent testimony, not otherwise admissible, which implies the accused has a prior criminal record, in an obvious effort to create prejudice in the minds of the jury. Decisions in which the admission of such testimony has been held not to have resulted in prejudicial error must be confined to the specific facts of each case rather than an indication of carte blanche approval of the practice." 198 Kan. at 12 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Redding · State v. Lumley““[T]he test of insanity of an accused precluding his being put on trial for a criminal offense is his capacity to comprehend his position, understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to conduct his defense in a rational manner. Stated in different fashion, if the accused is capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him; if he rightly comprehends his own condition with reference to such proceedings, and can conduct his defense in a rational manner, he is, for the purpose of being tried, to be deemed sane, although on some other subject his mind may be deranged or unsound.” (p. 219.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ridge · State v. Gilder““This court has held the testimony of a witness as to the identity of an accused is admissible if based upon the accused’s voice, features, or other distinguishing characteristics (State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512 , 394 P.2d 106 ; State v. Nixon, 111 Kan. 601 , 207 Pac. 854 ; State v. Herbert, 63 Kan. 516 , 66 Pac. 235 ), including the extrajudicial identification of an accused in a police lineup (Peterson v. State, 198 Kan. 26 , 422 P.2d 567 ; State v. Hill, supra). “Although the courts are somewhat divided as to the competency of evidence of extrajudicial identification, there is respectable authority holding that prior identification of an accused may be shown by the testimony of the identifying witness in corroboration of the testimony of the same witness identifying the accused at the trial. (20 Am. Jur., Evidence § 353; 22A C.J.S., Criminal Law § 725; Anno. 71 A.L.R.2d 449 ; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence §§ 181, 182 [12th ed. 1955]; 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1130 [3d ed. 1940].) The rationale of many of the cases appears to be that evidence of former identification made under proper circumstances is impressed with such trustworthiness as to entitle it to consideration by the jury (e.g., People v. Hurley, 151 Cal. App. 2d 339 , 311 P.2d 49 ; Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643 , 119 A.2d 917 ).” 198 Kan. at 9-10 (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Galloway
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.