State v. Borders’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We believe the requirement of a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant is equally applicable to alleged violations of the allocution statute as it is to the many other areas of criminal procedure where prejudice must be shown to justify a reversal. The defendant here has shown absolutely no prejudice, and while failure to comply with a mandatory statute, such as K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 22-3424(4), is error, [it is] not reversible error unless prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant is shown.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Soto v. State · State v. Hunt

2. ““K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 22-3424(4) states in pertinent part: “Before imposing sentence the court shall: . . . (d) address the defendant personally and ask the defendant if die defendant wishes to make a statement on die defendant’s own behalf and to present any evidence in mitigation of punishment.” This provision in K.S.A. 22-3424(4) establishes the right of a defendant to allocution, and this right is not waived by the defendant’s silence or by argument of counsel.” “For a defendant to successfully assert error based upon a denial of die opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment pursuant to the right to allocution in K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 22-3424(4), the defendant must make a proffer of the contemplated evidence comparable to that required by K.S.A. 60-405.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Kan. App. 2d 815 - State v. Fulton

3. “The defendant was given the opportunity of an interview and declined. The defendant cannot refuse to participate in the PSI interview process and then use the failure of an interview as a ground for appeal. We know of no rule of law that requires the court services officer to continue making attempts at a personal interview with the defendant after the defendant has refused the opportunity and refused to cooperate. The defendant’s due process rights were fully protected by the trial judge in this case, and the defendant has shown no prejudice. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in any of the issues asserted on appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watson v. City of Fayetteville