State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If any error was committed by Detective Rainey’s remark, we hold the unsolicited and unresponsive remark constituted harmless error under the circumstances. (State v. Robinson, 219 Kan. 218 , 547 P. 2d 335 ; State v. Bradford, 219 Kan. 336 , 548 P. 2d 812 ; and State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, 11 , 422 P. 2d 898 .). These cases dealt with an unforeseeable and unresponsive answer to a proper question. The cases recognize it is impossible for the court in advance to exclude an improper answer to a proper question. Therefore, the cases seem to turn on whether a limiting instruction was given and the degree of prejudice. In the case at bar any possible prejudice to the appellant was cured by the court’s admonition to the jury. (State v. Bradford, supra at 338; State v. Holsey, 204 Kan. 407 , 464 P. 2d 12 .)” (p. 703.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Barncord · State v. Mims

2. ““Furthermore, the front of the photographs show the dates they were taken. The appellant’s photograph was taken shortly after his June 29, 1974, arrest. The other phdtographs were taken in December 1972, May 1969, April 1967 and July 1969. Because the appellant’s photograph was the most recently taken, he argues this suggested he was the robber. No basis exists for such a conclusion. As the state argues, the police could very well have recently discovered that a likely suspect was an individual who had been arrested for another offense and had been photographed several years ago. In other cases involving dates on the front of phdtographs, witnesses have ndt connected the dates on the photographs with a particular defendant. (Reed v. State, 281 A. 2d 142 [Del. Sup. 1971]; People v. Hart, 10 Ill. App. 3d 857 , 295 N.E. 2d 63 [1973]; United States v. Counts, 471 F.2d 422 [2d Cir. 1973], cert. denied, 411 U.S. 935 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 395 , 93 S. Ct. 1909 ; United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson, 343 F. Supp. 116 [D. Del. 1972]; and Frederick v. Reshetylo, 363 F. Supp. 956 [N.D. Ohio 1973].)” (pp. 705-06.)”

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

3. ““The appellant last contends the state failed to sustain its burden of proof to show the crime committed was aggravated robbéry as opposed to simple robbery. The appellant argues it is not shown he possessed a loaded gun and thus he should not be charged with an aggravated robbery. Of course, with an automatic pistol a witness cannot tell whether a gun is loaded unless a shot is fired. Therefore, many courts have recognized one can be convicted of robbery by means of a dangerous weapon or deadly weapon, notwithstanding the fact that the gun allegedly used was unloaded. (Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 1412, 1426, § 7 [1961]; and see, The State v. Archer, 8 Kan. App. 737 , 54 Pac. 927 .)” 220 Kan. at 706 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Kan. App. 2d 605 - State v. Childers