State v. Johnson-Howell’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Rice (1997), State v. Saleem (1999)
2 federal appellate · 45 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · Bourjaily v. United States · Dutton v. Evans · Texas v. Louisiana
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.
““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. Before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” State v. Johnson-Howell, 255 Kan. 928, 944-45 , 881 P.2d 1288 (1994). “Where the evidence of guilt is of such direct and overwhelming nature that it can be said that the erroneous admission [or suppression] of certain other evidence could not have affected the result of the trial, such admission [or suppression] is harmless error.” State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176, 183 , 558 P.2d 93 (1976).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendant’s right to present a defense is subject to the rules of evidence and the case law. State v. Thomas, 252 Kan. 564, 573 , 847 P.2d 1219 (1993). The standard of review for a claim of improper exclusion of relevant evidence is whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony. State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 133 , 843 P.2d 203 (1992).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bornholdt“Evidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter stated, is hearsay evidence and inadmissible . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.