State v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 33 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In this state, as we have noted, when evidence is introduced in support of a plea of insanity at the time of the offense, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the issue, falls on the prosecution as in the case of any other necessary ingredient of the offense charged. Likewise, the test, on appellate review, of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is the same as that applied with respect to any other element of the offense. “The test referred to is stated in our holding in State v. Helm, 200 Kan. 147 , 434 P.2d 796 . We held: “ ‘In a criminal prosecution it is the function of the jury in the first instance, and of the trial court after verdict, to determine what facts are established by the evidence, and before a verdict of a jury which has been approved by the trial court may be set aside on appeal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the trial court.’ (Syl. f 2.)” (p. 363.)”

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

2. ““ • . [I]n order to remove this case from the jury’s considera tion, . . . “reasonable men must necessarily possess a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s sanity and . . . reasonable men must conclude that the government has failed to sustain its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the capacity to commit the crime.” . . .’ ””

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

3. ““. . . Truth serum tests occupy much the same position as lie detector tests, and no court has as yet recognized the admissibility of the results of such tests, at least for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted, . . .” (pp. 923, 924.)”

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