Thompson v. Norman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Tjhe character of the declaration was of such nature a reasonable man would not make it unless he believed it to be true. Probability of veracity is the safeguard sought; the reasonable man test is the criterion to be used. The judge may in a particular case be faced with a difficult decision where caution should be exercised; in making it he necessarily must be vested with a wide discretion. . . . “. . . In determining admissibility he may consider the nature and character of the statement, the person to whom it was made, the relationship of the parties, the probable motivation of the declarant in making the statement, and the circumstances under which it was made. “The burden was upon the defendant to satisfy the foundational requirements prior to admission of the declaration. Whether these requirements were satisfied is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge.” Thompson v. Norman, 198 Kan. at 443.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bryant · State v. Brown

2. ““Evidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is hearsay evidence and inadmissible except: “(j) Declarations against interest. Subject to the limitations of exception (f), a statement which the judge finds was at the time of the assertion so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest or so far subjected the declarant to civil or criminal liability or so far rendered invalid a claim by the declarant against another or created such risk of making the declarant an object of hatred, ridicule or social disapproval in the community that a reasonable man in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless the man believed it to be true.””

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

3. ““Before a hearsay statement should be admitted as a declaration against penal interest under K.S.A. 60-460(jj, the statement must in fact have been made against the declarant’s interest so as to have the potential for subjecting the declarant to criminal prosecution at the time of its utterance.” “K.S.A. 60-460(j) contemplates that the judge, using judicial discretion, find the statement ‘was at the time of the assertion so far contrary’ to the declarant’s penal interest ‘that a reasonable man in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believe it to be true.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 8 Kan. App. 2d 1 - State v. Palmer