State v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

89 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘In order for the evidence to be sufficient to require instructions on lesser degrees of die homicide, die testimony supporting such instructions must be offered either by die State or by die defense for die purpose of proving what events occurred at the time die homicide was committed. Contradictory statements of a witness which are offered only for the purpose of destroying his credibility and not as positive evidence to prove die matters contained in die statements are not alone sufficient to require an instruction on the lesser degrees of homicide.’ 226 Kan. at 714 .””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hutton · State v. Pearson

2. ““In some cases where the crime charged may include some lesser crime it is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury, not only as to the crime charged but as to all lesser crimes of which the accused might be found guilty under the information or indictment and upon the evidence adduced, even though such instructions have not been requested or have been objected to.” K.S.A. 21-3107(3).”

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

3. ““In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 (1979), a defendant was convicted under a Texas statute making it a crime for a jíerson to intentionally refuse to report his name and address to a police officer, who has lawfully stopped the person and requested such information. The defendant [who was seen walking in an El Paso alley about noon] was asked by a police officer for identification which he refused to provide. He was then arrested, charged, and convicted of a violation of the Texas statute. The United States Supreme Court held that the defendant’s conviction under the Texas statute should be set aside, since the stopping of the defendant by the police and requiring him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that since the officer admittedly stopped the defendant purely to obtain his identification and had no reason to suspect that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct, the stopping was an unreasonable seizure of his person. Brown makes it clear that when a police officer, without arresting an individual, stops and restrains him for the purpose of having him identify himself, that constitutes a seizure of his person subject to the Fourth Amendment. It is stated in the opinion that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be reasonable. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 , 45”

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