State v. King’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Second, the trial court instructed the jury that malice could be inferred from the use of a gun. Appellant objected to the instruction, preferring one which did not mention the permissible inference. The one given, she says, was inconsistent with her theory of self-defense. We find no error in the instruction. Unlike State v. Earnest, 56 Kan. 31 , 42 Pac. 359 , relied on by the appellant, the instruction did not tell the jury to presume malice. The jury was elsewhere properly instructed on the state’s burden of proof, the defendant’s presumed innocence and her theory of self-defense. The jury was thus required to consider the self-defense theory along with all the other evidence and was told only that it was entitled to infer malice from the use of a gun. Such has long been our law. State v. Hamilton, 216 Kan. 559 , 534 P.2d 226 , Syl. 5; State v. Blake, 209 Kan. 196 , 495 P.2d 905 , Syl. 4; State v. Earnest, supra, Syl. 1.” 221 Kan. at 74.”

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

2. ““A statement previously made by a person who is present at the hearing and available for cross-examination with respect to the statement and its subject matter, provided the statement would be admissible if made by declarant while testifying as a witness.””

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