State v. Schmidkunz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In controlling the scope of closing argument, the district court is vested with discretion, and absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse [the conviction] on grounds the prosecutor exceeded the scope of permissible closing argument. Unless the error is fundamental, a defendant must demonstrate a prosecutor’s comments during closing argument were improper and prejudicial. In order to be prejudicial, the improper closing argument must have stepped beyond the bounds of any fair and reasonable criticism of the evidence, or any fair and reasonable argument based upon any theory of the case that has support in the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Myers · State v. Streeper

2. ““This Court exercises its authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances in which the defendant has suffered a serious injustice.” State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6 , 678 N.W.2d 765 (citing State v. Anderson, 2003 ND 30, ¶ 8 , 657 N.W.2d 245 , and State v. Evans, 1999 ND 70, ¶ 9 , 593 N.W.2d 336 ). In analyzing obvious error claims under North Dakota law, we have applied a plain error framework, explaining an appellate court may notice a claimed error that was not brought to the district court’s attention if there was “(1) error,. (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.” State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶¶ 13-14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . Once the defendant establishes' that a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, this Court has discretion to correct the error, and should correct the error where it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at ¶ 16.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Costa

3. “The evidence against Schmidkunz was overwhelming, and we cannot say that the prosecutor’s single comment, which did not state any specific evidentiary facts, carried with it enough weight to impact the jury’s verdict and Schmid-kunz’s ability to receive a fair trial. Schmidkunz has failed to demonstrate the prosecutor’s remarks affected his substantial rights. Based upon our review of the record, we are unable to conclude the State’s improper comment in closing argument prejudiced Schmidkunz. We therefore, conclude Schmidkunz was not denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s comment and the claimed error does not rise to the level of obvious error requiring reversal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Streeper