State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably State v. Freeman (1978), State v. Grissom (1992)
84 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brown v. Illinois · Babich v. United States · State v. Bly · State v. Faulkner · State v. Lora
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' “The granting of a new trial for newly discovered evidence is in the trial court’s discretion. (State v. Larkin, 212 Kan. 158 , 510 P.2d 123 , cert. den. 414 U.S. 848 , 38 L.Ed.2d 95 , 94 S.Ct. 134 .) A new trial should not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence unless the evidence is of such materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result upon re-trial. (State v. Hale, 206 Kan. 521 , 479 P.2d 902 .) The credibility of the evidence offered in support of the motion is for the trial court’s consideration. (State v. Anderson, 211 Kan. 148 , 505 P.2d 691 ; State v. Larkin, supra.) The burden of proof is on defendant to show the alleged newly discovered evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial. (State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184 , 515 P.2d 1086 ; State v. Arney, 218 Kan. 369 , 544 P.2d 334 .) The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. (State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152 , 483 P.2d 495 ; State v. Anderson, supra.)””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When considering the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction of a crime on appeal the question is not whether the evidence is incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis except guilt. That question was for the jury and the trial court. The appellate court’s function is limited to ascertaining whether there is a basis in the evidence for a reasonable inference of guilt.” (Syl. 1.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In ruling on the admissibility of evidence of a prior conviction under 60-455, a district court must (1) determine it is relevant to prove one of the facts specified in the statute, (2) determine that fact is a disputed material fact - i.e. that it is substantially in issue, and (3) balance the probative value of the prior conviction evidence against its tendency to prejudice the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.