State v. Colwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 40 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[I]n State v. Colwell, 246 Kan. 382 , 790 P.2d 430 (1990), ... we stated: ‘. . . Although an expert may give an opinion on an ultimate issue as provided in K.S.A. 60-456(d), such witness may do so only insofar as the witness aids the jury in the interpretation of technical facts or assists the jury in understanding the material in evidence. An expert witness may not pass on the weight or credibility of evidence, for those matters are strictly within the province of the jury. State v. Moore, 230 Kan. 495 , Syl. ¶ 1, 639 P.2d 458 (1982). 246 Kan. at 389 .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mullins · State v. Rice

2. ““ ‘In State v. Lash, 237 Kan. 384 , the defendant was accused of sexually molesting his fifteen-year-old son. A psychologist who interviewed the son gave expert testimony. He was asked his opinion, based on testing and interviewing the son, whether the son had been sexually molested by the father. Over defendant’s objection, the court permitted the psychologist to testify as to whether he had an opinion whether the son had been sexually molested but would not permit the expert to testify as to whether the son had been sexually molested by the father. 237 Kan. at 384-85 . The defendant was acquitted. The State appealed on a question reserved as to whether the trial court erred in not permitting the expert to testify that in his opinion the son had been sexually molested by the father. We affirmed the lower court’s ruling, stating that the prosecutor’s question was improper because it called for an opinion which would require the expert to pass upon the credibility of witnesses or the weight of disputed evidence. 237 Kan. at 386 . “ ‘In State v. Jackson, 239 Kan. 463 , 721 P.2d 232 (1986), the trial court permitted two expert witnesses, social workers with expertise in child abuse treatment, to testify that “in their opinions the child was telling the truth and in their opinions the defendant committed the acts of molestation with which he was charged.” 239 Kan. at 470 . We reversed the conviction, stating that the experts attempted to serve as human he detectors for the child ”

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

3. “(b) If the witness is testifying as an expert, testimony of the witness in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions as the judge finds are (1) based on facts or data perceived by or personally known or made known to the witness at the hearing and (2) within the scope of the special knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by the witness.”

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