Crease v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] Thus, before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had litde, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]’ State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 , aff’d as modified 246 Kan. 393 , 789 P.2d 1175 (1990). See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 , 106 S. Ct. 1431 (1986); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967); State v. Peltier, 249 Kan. 415, 426 , 819 P.2d 628 (1991), cert. denied _ U.S. _, 120 L. Ed. 2d 875 (1992). On appeal, the defendant has the burden of showing the error substantially prejudiced his or her rights. [State v.] Garcia, 233 Kan. [589,] 596 [, 664 P.2d 1343 (1983)].” 252 Kan. at 334 .”

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

2. ““ ‘If it is already pre-determined (it seems) that the defendant is guilty of a crime, whether or not he actually committed the particular act or not, do we as jurors really have a choice in the matter as to whether he is to be judged (by us) guilty or not guilty. ‘The State tried to prove he was in the basement and actually committed the act. The defense says otherwise. Are we bound by the statement in [Instruction] 21. Do we have, a choice?’ Instruction 21 provided: ‘A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when, either before or during the commission of a crime, and with the intent to promote or assist in the commission of the crime, he intentionally aids or advises the other to commit the crime.’ ” 252 Kan. at 328 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McGinnes · Kenneth Crease v. David McKune

3. ““Obviously, there is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the district court in this case. That is not the standard of review, however. Our standard of review on this issue requires a review of the entire record by this court. ‘Since Chapman , we have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation omitted.]’ Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681 . “Our examination of the entire trial transcript convinces us the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The record indicates that Crease and his accomplice, or accomplices, committed an aggravated burglary and that one of the burglars carried a high-powered rifle and one carried a handgun similar to one a witness previously had observed in Crease’s bedroom. Crease’s own testimony acknowledged his participation in the burglary and his awareness that at least one rifle was carried into the house in which the sleeping couple was shot and killed during the burglary. Given the burglary convictions, only if one or more of the jurors did not follow the instructions could there have been a hung jury or an acquittal on the felony-murder charges. “Brinkley testified that the judge did not pressure her and that she had not decided how she would vote when she left his chambers. No objection was, or is, made to the trial judg”

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