State v. Weigel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

102 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Rebuttal evidence is that which contradicts evidence introduced by an opposing party. It may tend to corroborate evidence of a party who first presented evidence on the particular issue, or it may refute or deny some affirmative fact which an opposing party has attempted to prove. It may be used to explain, repel, counteract or disprove testimony or facts introduced by or on behalf of the adverse party. Such evidence includes not only testimony which contradicts the witnesses on the opposite side, but also corroborates previous testimony. The use and extent of rebuttal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be reversed unless it appears the discretion has been abused to a party’s prejudice.””

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

2. ““Defendant’s next point concerns Iris request that the court give an instruction on aiding a felon. Defendant had maintained throughout his trial that his actions, after he awoke from a drunken stupor and drove his companions away from die bank, were for the purpose of helping one of the female robbers get out of die state. He argues diat this was his theory of defense and as such die court should have instructed diereon. We cannot agree. Aiding a felon is a separate criminal offense proscribed by K.S.A. 21-3812. It is not error to refuse an instruction diereon when the accused has not been charged with said crime and it is not a lesser included offense of the crimes of which he has been charged. Defendant was not charged widi die crime of aiding a felon. The crime was not a lesser included offense of any of the crimes of which he was charged. See K.S.A. 21-3107. Therefore, the point is without merit.””

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

3. “A witness need not be an expert in voice identification to testify as to the identity of the defendant.... It is the general rule that testimony by a witness that he or she recognized the accused by his voice is admissible in evidence, provided only that the witness has some basis for comparison of the accused’s voice with the voice which he or she identifies as the accused’s.... The completeness of the identifications goes to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Mere hesitancy or uncertainty on the part of a witness in identifying an accused by voice recognition affects only the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony.”

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