Baker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

104 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The contemporaneous objection rule long adhered to in this state requires timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence in order for the question of admissibility to be considered on appeal. (K. S. A. 60-404.) The rule is a salutary procedural tool serving a legitimate state purpose. (See, Mize v. State, 199 Kan. 666 , 433 P. 2d 397 ; State v. Freeman, 195 Kan. 561 , 408 P. 2d 612 , cert. denied, 384 U. S. 1025 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 1030 , 86 S. Ct. 1981 .) By making use of the rule, counsel gives the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence, and thus avoid possible reversal and a new trial. Furthermore, the rule is practically one of necessity if litigation is ever to be brought to an end.” (p. 611.)”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moore · State v. Shepherd

2. ““. . . Thus, foundation proof testing the admissibility of a confession must be heard outside the presence and hearing of the jury, even though no request for such hearing is made, unless, of course, there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right by the accused — ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ (See, Fay v. Noia, supra, [ 372 U. S. 391 , 9 L. Ed. 2d 837 , 83 S. Ct. 822 ] and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 , 82 L. Ed. 1461 , 58 S. Ct. 1019 , 146 A. L. R. 357.) The rule of Milow [State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 438 ] is well stated in syllabus [¶] 3: “ ‘It is the duty of a trial court, before admitting a purported confession into evidence, to conduct a proceeding separate and apart from the jury to determine from the evidence, as a preliminary matter, whether the confession was freely and voluntarily made by the accused. The range of inquiry in such collateral proceeding by the trial court is broad, and the inquiry must be based upon a consideration of the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (p. 616.)”

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

3. ““A proceeding under K. S. A. 60-1507 cannot be used as a substitute for a direct appeal involving mere trial errors; but if the trial errors affect constitutional rights, they may be raised in the collateral proceeding, even though they could have been raised by direct appeal, provided there were exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal. (Rule No. 121 [c] [3].)” (Syl. ¶ 2.)”

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