State v. Stone’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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Ordinarily, a person intends all of the usual consequences of his voluntary acts. This inference may be considered by you along with all the other evidence in the case. You may accept or reject it in determining whether the State has met its burden to prove the required criminal intent of the defendant. This burden never shifts to the defendant."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Martinez · 23 Kan. App. 2d 69 - State v. Pope

2. ““The law is well settled in this state that, in a crime of violence which results in death, photographs which serve to illustrate the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted are admissible when they corroborate the testimony of witnesses or are relevant to the testimony of a pathologist as to the cause of death, even though they may appear gruesome. [Citation omitted.] “ . . . Photographs which are unduly repetitious, gruesome, and withoutprobative value should not be admitted into evidence. [Citation omitted.] Nevertheless , demonstrative photographs are not inadmissible merely because they are gruesome and shocking where they are true reproductions of relevant physical facts and material conditions at issue. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Stone, 253 Kan. 105, 110-11 , 853 P.2d 662 (1993).”

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

3. ““The admission of photographs as evidence in a homicide case rests within the trial court’s discretion, and that court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. 369, 383 , 807 P.2d 86 (1991); State v. Prouse, 244 Kan. 292, 294 , 767 P.2d 1308 (1989); State v. Lucas, 243 Kan. 462, 476-77 , 759 P.2d 90 (1988). Photographs which are unduly repetitious, gruesome, and without probative value should not be admitted into evidence. State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373, 377 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975). Nevertheless, demonstrative photographs are not inadmissible merely because they are gruesome and shocking where they are true reproductions of relevant physical facts and material conditions at issue. State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. at 383 .” 253 Kan. at 111 .”

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