State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably State v. Davis (2007), State v. Aikins (1997)
4 district · 66 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Denno · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Williams v. Florida · Taylor v. Kentucky · Baldwin v. New York Williams
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, the instructions are to be considered together and read as a whole without isolating any one instruction. If the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts in the case, and if the jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, then the instructions do not constitute reversible error although they may be in some small way erroneous.” State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 252 , Syl. ¶ 4, 874 P.2d 623 (1994).”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Davis · State v. Adam““The State has the burden to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he is not guilty. You must presume that he is not guilty until you are convinced from the evidence that he is guilty. “The test you must use in determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any claims made by the State, you must find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims made by the State, you should find the defendant guilty.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Clark · State v. Cook““The pattern jury instructions for Kansas (PIK) have been developed by a knowledgeable committee to bring accuracy, clarity, and uniformity to jury instructions. They should be the starting point in the preparation of any set of jury instructions. If the particular facts in a given case require modification of the applicable pattern instruction or the addition of some instruction not included in PIK, the trial court should not hesitate to make such modification or addition. However, absent such need, PIK instructions and recommendations should be followed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Greig v. Botros · State v. Appleby
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.