State v. Bly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

207 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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Subject to K.S.A. 60-447 evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his or her disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that the person committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but, subject to K.S.A. 60-445 and 60-448 such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Crossman · State v. Faulkner

2. “"11. Where a similar offense is offered for the purpose of proving identity, the evidence should disclose sufficient facts and circumstances of the other offense to raise a reasonable inference that the defendant committed both of the offenses. In other words to show that the same person committed two offenses it is not sufficient simply to show that the offenses were violations of the same or a similar statute. There should be some evidence of the underlying facts showing the manner in which the other offense was committed so as to raise a reasonable inference that the same person committed both offenses." 215 Kan. at 177 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Nunn · State v. Gourley

3. ““. . . [T]he erroneous admission of evidence during a trial does not in every case require a reversal of a conviction. (State v. O’Neal, [ 204 Kan. 226 , 461 P. 2d 801 ].) A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials. (Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 208 , 93 S. Ct. 1565 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 .) Not every admission of inadmissible evidence can be considered to be reversible error; instances occur in almost every trial where inadmissible evidence creeps in, usually inadvertently. K. S. A. 60-261 requires the courts of Kansas to disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. This rule known as the harmless error rule applies unless the error is of such a nature as to amount to a denial of substantial justice. (State v. Fleury, 203 Kan. 888 , 457 P. 2d 44 .)” (p. 178.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Clark · State v. Lumley